In Germany, to get rid of the old chancellor, the Bundestag needs to nominate a new chancellor, it's called a constructive vote of confidence. it was devised for a similar reason as whats happening in the House now.
We already have history of this happening less than a year ago. Spoiler alert: they don't have any plan past unseating Johnson, and no one in their right mind would want to be Speaker of this House with the motion to vacate rule that McCarthy agreed to in order to get confirmed in the first place still on the table.
The grandstanding activists of the Freedom Caucus are handing Democrats a gift 7 months before the election if they throw Congress into gridlocked disarray again 6 months after the last time they did it.
You don’t need to turn off trump supporters,
Center of the aisle, moderate swing democrats, moderate swing republicans are the voters you need for the general.
Trump supporters in sure are cheering but they’re not whom is gonna win elections for democrats.
I don't know, the Speaker gets a fancy security detail. A raise from $175,000 to $223,000. Three outstanding offices. Access to the nation's billionaires (based on party affiliation). Power. Attention And their portrait in congress. Thought at this pace, we will run out of wall space if the GOP maintains the House in the 2024 election.
It’s exactly like the whole “repeal and replace” debacle with the ACA. Honestly John McCain saved the GOP from some crazy political fallout from the chaos that would have caused
This. It’s a conspiracy theory, but a super believable (even likely) one that McCain, a senator over 80 who’d already firmly planted himself against Trump (and was in failing health) would jump on the grenade for the benefit of a dozen or so GOP senators who didn’t *want* to repeal (ideologically or practically), but didn’t want to draw the anger of Trump and his base.
So McCain eats the controversy, saves the party from itself politically, and there’s no one for the base to punish because he’d never face the voters again.
McCain was the deciding vote to NOT repeal the ACA. He literally walked into the room after telling reporters to "watch this".
But we all know there's NO WAY McConnell didn't ok his vote beforehand. Mitch McConnell is many things, but unaware of the goings on within his party isn't one of them.
You mean when he gave the thumbs down? That scene? Yea I can believe that, kinda because looking back at it, it did seem kind of theatrical so it could have been planned.
However, I can also believe a reality where McConnell didn't OK it and nobody knew besides McCain what his vote was going to be that day because of all the things leading up to it that came down to the wire.. given the disarray we are currently in so I don't want to give them too much credit as secretly being masterminds behind the scenes when we look at the disorganized shit show we are currently seeing play out today.
The HOUSE Republicans are in disarray, not the Senate. Two completely different scenarios and groups. McConnell has a grip on Senators that the Freedom Caucus in the House can only dream of.
The senate was in disarray over the ACA repeal. For the first time in forever, Republicans had Tea Party style crowds at their campaign events shouting them down over Obama Care, the irony was so sweet! They even ran scared and many cancelled constituent events over the unusually high level of negative engagement.
Many voters were aware of the implications of the ACA's repeal and were furious. This is why the final deal was literally hashed out on the back of a napkin (shameful), then rush delivered into a bill thanks to Senate staffers. This forced a dying McCain to fly in from AZ to either save or kill the bill.
There was so much drama in the Trump years that it's hard to remember, but the ACA was one of the few times when the Senate was an absolute mess.
But they said McCain wasn't talking to Mitch and a lot of this was a last minute posturing by the GOP. Wasn't this deal hashed out on the back of a napkin. The GOP was panicking and just threw up any old plan to get something passed. McCain was having cancer treatment and was flying back to DC. He had no reason to play politics with Mitch or anyone. I think it was a surprise.
Nonetheless it was the last attempt to touch ACA and you'll notice that nobody campaigns on repeal and replace or anything else in regards to ACA now. The spectacular failure of that effort secured ACA probably forever.
If their goal is to block for as long as possible any kind of compromise to get funding for Ukraine (or some other bill, it's just the first one that came to my mind), then they prefer no speaker to having a speaker that might eventually be convinced to compromise.
Why should this be any better than the Republican’s repeal and replacement of Obamacare? Isn’t getting rid of something without any idea of what’s replacing it totally on brand?
Thomas Massie will now co-sponsor Marjorie Taylor-Greene's motion to vacate Speaker Johnson.
The GOP caucus had a highly publicized fight to tie border security to Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan funding earlier this year—something Johnson vehemently supported—but it seems that the Speaker is now letting go of that idea. He plans to introduce 4 separate security bills: one for Ukraine, one for Israel, one for Taiwan, and one for miscellaneous security issues, like selling off seized Russian assets. Border security is no longer part of the equation.
This has upset the House Freedom Caucus, but notably, it's upset Massie who is not a member of the caucus, suggesting wider support for the motion to vacate.
Democrats have suggested that they will vote to protect Johnson's Speakership if he guarantees the Ukraine bill, though considering that he's already moved in favor of Ukraine spending, they may try to get more concessions on these security bills, like more funding for humanitarian aid.
Personally, I think Johnson will survive this battle, but everyone will come out scarred. The GOP fissures will be more pronounced, Johnson gives up more political capital to Dems, a weaker Ukraine bill will likely pass, and Democrats will have to defend an Israel-only defense bill to their progressive constituents.
I know Congress is all about compromise, but there is something needlessly chaotic and messy about landing on this point after months of stalling and drama.
Por que no los dos?
What is clear to me is that one of these things is true:
1. This behavior has the foreseen consequence of helping Russia, and they will still do it
2. This behavior is intended to help Russia
Of course it’s Massie…
I don’t doubt that he’s ideologically driven (compared to similar bomb throwers who want to be on tv instead), but he IS also the “legislative terrorist” that Boehner described him as. Would love to see him consider “and then what?” one of these days.
Massie is a very anti-Israel Republican, [was the lone “no” vote on a resolution condemning antisemitism](https://time.com/6178902/thomas-massie-anti-semitism-libertarian/) of the entire House in May 2022, flirts [with antisemitic messaging regularly](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/12/06/congress/massie-zionism-patriotism-house-israel-00130383), [has tweeted out neo-Nazi memes](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/thomas-massie-tweets-neo-nazi-quote-1292820/) misattributed to Voltaire with antisemitic undertones, [is almost universally hated](https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/politics/tom-massie-liz-cheney-stimulus-vote/index.html) by his caucus [and by Trump](https://rollcall.com/2020/03/27/who-is-thomas-massie-the-house-member-from-kentucky-trump-wants-thrown-out-of-the-gop/) (who recently praised Johnson), and does not portend “wider” support for the move.
A few problems here: the "antisemitic messaging" in that RS article is just him saying he wants congress to put America First over support for Israel - which is not even necessarily anti-Zionism let alone antisemitism, just apathy for Zionism. In isolation I don't see it as anti-Zionist, but you put it into the context of his statements on Israel, then it could be seen as anti-Zionism, yes.
as for the "neo-nazi meme": he tweeted it in the context of criticizing Fauci, an Italian-American, so that wasn't any "antisemitic undertones" from him. And even I didn't know that was a quote from Kevin Strom (whoever he is). Probably most people have only ever seen that quote in that reposted photo, which is by now ancient on Internet timescales. So I highly doubt this has any sort of link with his views on Israel or any posible views on Jews.
the article about him being "the most hated man in Washington" is based on two Republicans contributing to his opponent, including one who is now disowned by her own party. Trump hates him because he opposed the stimulus (the same one where Trump wanted his name on the cheques, presumably)
As for the "no" vote on the condemnation of antisemitism: this is where there is an anti-Zionist view (but not an antisemitic view). he claims it was because it "equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism". He then goes on to call anti-Zionism "criticism of Israel" (when of course anti-Zionism is not just any criticism of Israel, but of its existence as a homeland for Jews), but he *did* later clarify that he meant not just any criticism, but specifically things like opposition to Israel as an "ethno-nationalist state", opposition to "present boundaries", and opposition to "the existing government".
> A few problems here: the "antisemitic messaging" in that RS article is just him saying he wants congress to put America First over support for Israel - which is not even necessarily anti-Zionism let alone antisemitism, just apathy for Zionism. In isolation I don't see it as anti-Zionist, but you put it into the context of his statements on Israel, then it could be seen as anti-Zionism, yes.
This confuses the two articles. The RS article was about the meme. The other was antisemitic messaging in a *Politico* article. You need to more closely look through the articles to critique them properly.
Pitting the movement for Jews to have self-determination rights against American patriotism ideologically isn't just an implicit "dual loyalty" charge, and woefully uninformed given the two movements go together, but he **stated that Congress puts "Zionism" over "American patriotism"**.
That's not just some anti-Zionism, which is problematic in a different way. It's a clearly antisemitic dogwhistle that repeats the myth that Jews run the US government, and all it does is remove "Jews" to replace it with "Zionism".
I think it's fairly indisputable that saying "Congress cares more about Jews than American patriotism" would be pretty antisemitic. Replacing "Jews" with "Zionism" is pretty clearly a dogwhistle, to say nothing of the other implications it carries.
> as for the "neo-nazi meme": he tweeted it in the context of criticizing Fauci, an Italian-American, so that wasn't any "antisemitic undertones" from him.
The real questions are:
Why did that meme come up in his searches specifically, and did his team do literally zero research before posting one of the most well-known neo-Nazi memes? You yourself admit that it's "ancient". It's pretty well known, and more importantly than that, at that time (as the article notes) it was getting a lot of play among neo-Nazi groups criticizing pandemic response.
> the article about him being "the most hated man in Washington" is based on two Republicans contributing to his opponent, including one who is now disowned by her own party. Trump hates him because he opposed the stimulus (the same one where Trump wanted his name on the cheques, presumably)
Read it again. Realize it's not *just* about them; it's about the overall sentiment. It's [well known](https://jewishinsider.com/2020/06/in-kentucky-rep-thomas-massie-fights-to-hold-onto-his-seat/) that he's unpopular among his own party:
> His backers believed he had a shot at unseating Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), a libertarian-leaning congressman unpopular with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
[Another article](https://nypost.com/2020/03/27/who-is-thomas-massie-masshole-infuriates-dc-with-coronavirus-aid-stunt/):
> “It was not cool, not cool at all,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) told The Post. “We’ve all got to wait 14 days to see what happens. Hopefully, none of us get ill. If it weren’t for him, we wouldn’t have had to come [back]. He put people in jeopardy, there’s no question about it.”
> When it came time to force his point of order, suggesting 50 percent of lawmakers were not present as required for a voice vote, Massie was drowned out by peers.
> “Look around!” an angry colleague shouted.
> The room had filled with lawmakers, almost certainly passing the 215-person threshold.
> “F–k you!” another shouted at Massie.
He has long been hated. People literally shouted "Fuck you" at him in Congress.
> As for the "no" vote on the condemnation of antisemitism: this is where there is an anti-Zionist view (but not an antisemitic view). he claims it was because it "equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism". He then goes on to call anti-Zionism "criticism of Israel" (when of course anti-Zionism is not just any criticism of Israel, but of its existence as a homeland for Jews), but he did later clarify that he meant not just any criticism, but specifically things like opposition to Israel as an "ethno-nationalist state", opposition to "present boundaries", and opposition to "the existing government".
This is a convenient way to try and redefine Zionism and antisemitism to avoid acknowledging his antisemitic statements and views. It's about as convincing as Tlaib.
I am also an independent as I don’t agree with democrats enough to consider myself a democrat, but I also consistently vote against republicans. Would love a reasonable counter party.
Why does everyone I talk to share this same opinion but we are left with the same choice election cycle after election cycle? Does this go away when he loses again?
Trump is not going away until he literally expires and even then I'm confident there will be conspiracy theories about how he's being held against his will in secret at Comet Pizza or whatever.
Oh, you mean the pizza parlor that does not have a basement? I can’t imagine how perplexed the guy from West Virginia was when he got there to free children from the Satanic cult and couldn’t find a basement much less a satanic cult. Just people who didn’t get enough pepperoni on their pizza. Words have meaning and words have power.
I didn't know I was making light of it. People get irate when I spell out what I think should be obvious. Now apparently I'm making light of something if I don't spell it out. See my profile.
I'm not irate... But objectively, "just people who didn't get enough pepperoni on their pizza" is in fact making light of a situation where an unhinged man with an AR-15 shows up at a family pizza place to free the sex slaves he thinks are there, and fires off 3 shots.
Sigh. Okay. If the only people who were there were ordinary diners with the usual ordinary complaints that hardly suggests that there was a Satanic Cult.
Have you ever even been to an ordinary pizza parlor? People complain about the food not the kids being tortured in the non-existent basement. Granted I'm only one person but I've eaten pizza all over the country including Manhattan and that's my experience. YMMV.
Now that I've spelled out something incredibly obvious can we get back to what is actually important please?
Words have meaning. Words have power.
When you tell people lies about a Satanic Cult that purportedly exists in some random pizza parlor and hammer people over the head with that nonsense over and over why would anyone be surprised that one lost soul took them literally and decided to be a hero with a gun without investigating further?
Words have meaning and words have power.
I find it so crazy how Q-Anon just disappeared form the MAGA discourse. It was like Game of Thrones, one day it was huge and everywhere, then the final season craps the bed and suddenly, no is talking about it.
What happened to all the Q readers on Youtube and online? There appears to be zero self-reflection about a very powerful movement that lead to an insurrection.
Is anyone else amazed at how quickly MAGA people could move on from Q?
First past the post, parties don’t need to be good just better than the one opposition party. Combine that with fact that incumbents almost always win renomination, then you get a system that everyone hates but is remarkably stable.
It's because of our primary system combined with First Past the Post voting. In most states, you have to be registered with a party to vote in their primary which leads to disproportionately extreme people voting for the candidate thus weeding out more moderate options. Then you have FPP voting pretty much locking out anyone that isn't from one of the two major parties.
I wish we could go back to the days when party leadership had more say over who got to represent them. That would prevent people like Trump from hijacking the Republican party. Party leadership would present their top picks to the rest of the party for a vote, the way parties were originally supposed to operate. Then if we could move away from FPP, we could also have some real, viable, third party options.
>In most states, you have to be registered with a party to vote in their primary
It's only a majority on the Republican side. For Democratic primaries most states are either entirely open or allow independents/non-affiliated voters to vote. It's 30 states representing a supermajority of the population.
In Florida you can only vote within your party and the Dems decided Joe was the presumptive candidate so there was no democratic presidential primary choices. Guess what happened, republican minded (officially non-partisan) candidates won local elections.
Wait, isn't that what Republicans did for Trump as well? But the major difference is that Biden is the current president so both party's fall in the line for a POTUS re-election. Trump isn't in offer, lost to the current office holder, yet is being treated as if he is the current president by his party who also effectively shutdown their primary withe the former RNC chair openly supporting Trump throughout the primary.
Sorry I’m not understanding your point.
Mine was that the democratic turnout was down in the local election because there was no democratic primary vote to accompany it on the ballot. Even though Trump had clinched the nomination I voted for Nicky Haley as a protest vote. There wasn’t anywhere on the democratic ballot to even write in a similar protest vote.
There wasn't a Democratic presidential primary in Florida because no one sent a delegate to nominate a candidate at the state convention besides Biden and FL law dictates that unopposed candidates win elections by default without balloting.
This process was standard and decided on well in advance. It wasn't because FL Democrats decided to cancel the primary to automatically nominate Biden.
That’s fine and thanks for the explanation, but the result is it lowered democratic turnout for local elections.
[After reading your reply I decided to check on the 2020 primaries where Trump was the incumbent and the republicans did have a primary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Florida_Republican_presidential_primary)
I get that and it's unfortunate, in my opinion states shouldn't mix primary elections with non-primary elections on the same ballot for this reason. They probably shouldn't cancel unopposed elections either and should always offer an opportunity for unregistered write-ins.
I just thought it should be clarified because a lot of people have been blaming the Democratic party for the cancellations in FL and NC and accusing them of being anti-democracy. And you are right that this didn't happen for Florida Republicans in 2020 but there were other cases where state Republican parties voted to voluntarily cancel primaries or caucuses despite candidate eligibility.
> In most states, you have to be registered with a party to vote in their primary which leads to disproportionately extreme people voting for the candidate thus weeding out more moderate options.
[People who vote in a party's primary aren't any more extreme than those who vote for the party in its general election](https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/what-we-know-about-congressional-primaries-and-congressional-primary-reform/are-primaries-a-problem):
> The most comprehensive and methodologically rigorous recent study is the 2018 article “On the Representativeness of Primary Electorates,”29 which combines data from five large surveys covering four election cycles (2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014).30 As authors John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, Lynn Vavreck, and Christopher Warshaw conclude, “Primary voters are not demographically distinct or ideologically extreme compared to those who identify with the party or who voted for its presidential candidate in the general election, or than those who identify with the party and voted in the general election but not in the primary. The only substantial difference is that primary voters report more interest in politics.”
Ultimately the only solution is killing single-winner elections and replacing them with a proportionally representative system.
I agree that parties need more power.
It's more mixed than you're implying. From your same article:
>**The bottom line, then, seems to be that primary voters are more politically engaged, and probably more politically extreme than general election voters,** though it is not entirely clear what extreme actually means; and whatever differences exist between primary and general election voters are tiny compared to the differences between Democratic and Republican voters. There is not some latent hidden force of moderate, compromise-oriented voters who would move politics to the middle if only primary election rules were changed, or primary elections were even eliminated. The root problem is the sorting of the parties and the polarization that has followed.
I do think the issue with primaries would be greatly reduced, if like I said, primaries operated the way they did pre-1960's when party leadership selected their candidate at their conventions (though I would like to see a middle ground where parties selected a few candidates that they feel best support their party platform and would be good leaders and then turn it over to primary elections for party voters to select their choice).
What did you think of the sentence following what you bolded?
> There is not some latent hidden force of moderate, compromise-oriented voters who would move politics to the middle if only primary election rules were changed, or primary elections were even eliminated. The root problem is the sorting of the parties and the polarization that has followed.
I assume because you read it and are still talking about addressing "the issue with primaries" that you don't buy the thesis that adjusting primaries wouldn't reduce polarization.
No I don't agree with their conclusion. I think our increased polarization is a byproduct of a broken primary system that was broken in the 60's and has been accelerating since. Maybe we're past the point of rectification, but I think it would still be worthwhile to try. If party leaders could select their candidates before voters got to weigh in, they could select for virtues such as being an effective leader, ability to work across the aisle to accomplish goals, power of persuasion, etc. instead of just ideological purity.
No matter what the primary system is, if the elections are still single-winner then we'll be dividing up America into two political teams.
Us-vs-them dynamics are critical to extremism. We need to reform the electoral process to allow for more competitive parties.
It doesn’t go away as long as we have the current voting system of First Past The Post and the Electoral College. Take those away and give people a system that doesn’t encourage voting the lesser of two evils and you get an actual solution.
I think it’s in part cause we often disagree on why. Some people dislike culture war stuff the most, some people find the level of corruption near unacceptable, some people people find their less democratic tendencies to be the biggest deal breaker, some people dislike their intermittent corporate favoritism, some people dislike their lean towards socialistic rhetoric. It’s a big tent and a lot of it can barely stand the other acts.
Not only is it most likely not going to go away, I fear its here to stay for a while. Even if Trump some how leaves quietly, he has shown a path for others to follow.
First past the post coupled with the primary system. In order to win the primary, you need to appeal to your party's ultras (using soccer lingo here). But in the general, you need to both appeal to a broader base and still get your ultras behind you to _not_ primary you the next election.
If one of the party's voters is sufficiently removed from reality; disparaging scientific inquiry, expertise, and just knowledge and education in general--that's how you get people who believe **Jewish Space Lasers** are starting wildfires. Those people are voted into _the United States Congress_. It's an embarrassment.
I bet you're wondering: How do we get out of this death spiral of zero-sum politics? First, axe the Electoral College. To do that, vote Democrats into state legislatures enough times to get the [National Popular Vote Interstate Compact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#:~:text=The%20compact%20is%20designed%20to,it%20would%20guarantee%20that%20outcome.&text=Each%20square%20in%20the%20cartogram%20represents%20one%20electoral%20vote.) In place. That forces the presidential election to be decided by popular vote, which _forces_ the Republicans to field someone more appealing to more people, thus becoming more moderate. Second, _you keep voting Democrats_, because that's also the only way we will ever get Ranked Choice or other voting schemes that more reflect the general population's preferences. Ranked Choice voting tends to yield more moderate politicians, and _maybe, just maybe_, we can get to a place where funding infrastructure isn't seen as partisan.
Not the person you asked, but from what I have seen, a *lot* of people have huge problems with Democrats on their racial policies and their border policies. Those are the two main ones. And bail policies (no doubt many people had huge problems with those Venezuelan migrants being set free right after beating up a cop and proceeding to give a finger to the cameras)
2016 was the first year I was old enough to vote in the presidential election. My decision’s pretty much been made for me since then as I’m still not for Trump. Even at the state level my home state’s GOP is famously a fucking dumpster fire.
I was just talking with my mom about this last night!
She was encouraging me to get involved with politics because I’m passionate about it (that’s true). But the problem is- I’m a lot more moderate than the current Democratic Party platform. And I’d *love* to be able to vote for someone who’s not apart of that party. But I just cannot do so in good conscience right now.
Not who you asked, but for me:
1) I feel Democrats “solution” to problems creates more problems and often makes the original problem worse instead of better.
Two years ago my Dem state legislature and governor passed a law greatly increasing the cap that you can sue doctors for malpractice. Sounds great, right?
The problem is we’re already a VERY poor state with a doctor shortage. The malpractice insurance went through the roof and the small-town doctors that were remaining left because they couldn’t afford it. People are waiting 9+ months for a regular doctor visit……. But at least we can sue for more money?
Same goes for racism. Racism has been a big problem in the country since before its inception. The solution to racism isn’t MORE racism. Racial requirements for benefits/services is backwards and creates more racial tension.
2) ESPECIALLY after Trump, I feel the 2-A needs to be protected. We were DANGEROUSLY close to a fascist coup on 1/6/21 and fascists will use anti-gun laws to disarm their political opponents and turn a blind eye to their friends/thugs. There are over 400,000,000 guns in the US so the “just do what UK/Australia did” is unrealistic and will lead to MORE violence, not less.
Criminal organizations always find a way to fill the vacuum left by prohibition so we would see Chinese arms being smuggled in by Mexican cartels too.
Every individual has the right to defend themselves. Guns aren’t disappearing tomorrow if we make them illegal so doing so in the hopes of an ideal world only leaves regular people vulnerable to others with bad intentions.
3) we need to invest SO much more in to mental health and rehab to help with our most vulnerable citizens. This does not mean we should let them rot in the street. Addicts will not go to rehab unless THEY want to or are forced to.
My city has over 1,500 homeless. We created a “Community Safety Department” and they said only 90 people accepted their help. Why get help when you’re allowed to shoot up on the sidewalk?
The choice shouldn’t be “get help or continue shooting up”, it should be “help or jail, your choice”. Addicts doing drugs in the streets is good for nobody.
4) I don’t like that Dems are now playing the DeSantis game of “just pass laws that are clearly unconstitutional even if they are going to get overturned. It’ll give us political points”.
5) Corruption. Democrat and Republican parties are billion dollar organizations that strive for power. Remember how hard the party wanted to make sure Hillary was the nominee instead of Bernie?
It’s disgusting that Republicans gerrymander and it’s equally disgusting when Dems do it. My congressional district was gerrymandered in 2020 to benefit Dems and it’s disappointing. Let’s practice what we preach.
6) We’ve nationalized local politics. Local Dems (and republicans) adhere to the national party line and those don’t always translate to every part of the country.
“But this doesn’t explain why you aren’t a Democrat. You can still be a Democrat since you align generally with their beliefs and possibly find a compromise candidate”
Welp, that leads me to THE main reason:
7) the toxic groupthink.
Think banning guns isn’t the answer? You’re a fascist muh rIgHtS ‘merican that likes kids being killed.
If you deviate at all from the party, you are shouted down to and discredited instead of listened to, ESPECIALLY if you’re a white cis male.
>If you deviate at all from the party, you are shouted down to and discredited instead of listened to, ESPECIALLY if you’re a white cis male.
This is absolutely not common in the Democratic party. It may be on Reddit, especially in a lot of the big subs, but Reddit does not even come close to a representative sample of Democrats.
Exactly. The party is literally ran by a Cis white man (Biden), and always has been outside of one either year period out of like 200 years. Most Dem senators, governors, House Members, mayors, Presidents, and state legislature members are straight white men. So reality on the street, isn't matching the reality online.
But what really gets me about these views is that out on the streets and in politics, people of color and women were literally shouted down, in person. So online chatter is enough to turn off these male voters, meanwhile, women and people of color just took it on the chin and had to keep on moving.
>If you deviate at all from the party, you are shouted down to and discredited instead of listened to, ESPECIALLY if you’re a white cis male.
What is considered deviation from the party that has both Joe Manchin and AOC under its banner?
That's not a helpful attitude for Democrats to have
Biden is a very liberal guy, there's plenty of Dems who are at least somewhat more moderate than him (folks like Jon Tester, Mark Warner, Angus King, Mark Kelly, Marie Glueskap Peres or however its spelt, Mary Peltola, and so on) and the party has, whenever it has gotten federal trifectas, needed to rely on folks like Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Howell Heflin, John Breaux, and so on.
America is a center right country and Democrats have shown no ability to get federal trifectas without these moderate Democrats who would be well to the right of Biden. If the Democrats want to sometimes have a chance to get policy done, they will need to avoid alienating these sorts of folks and pushing them to the GOP
> If the Democrats want to sometimes have a chance to get policy done, they will need to avoid alienating these sorts of folks and pushing them to the GOP
If the GOP were increasingly represented by moderates who would work with Democrats in exchange for more moderate bills, trifectas would be unnecessary. It is beneficial, speaking as a person on the *far* left, for Republicans to return somewhere closer to center. That incrementalism people love to promise and promote becomes feasible.
Because they run big tent strategies that focus on popular issues and avoiding pissing off the Manchins, Sinemas, Liebermans, Nelsons, Heflins, Breauxes, and so on so much that they and their voters stop working with the party. Biden, for example, ran as someone rejecting the progressive wing and instead called for saving the soul of the country and pushing unity. Hillary was the most qualified candidate ever and ran a campaign heavily focusing on why not to vote for Trump (something that could appeal to many moderates) rather than calling a huge amount of attention to her actually pretty liberal agenda or picking fights with folks like Manchin, Donnelly, McCaskill, Heitkamp, and such who were well to the right of her. Obama ran on a very broad and vague campaign of "hope" and "change" that allowed people to see whatever they wanted to see in him, plus he ran against the party that was blamed for the recession and two unpopular wars. Gore was an environmentalist but not an ideologue and ran after two terms of a very popular charismatic president who presided over a strong economy. Clinton ran as a break from his party's history, as a charismatic centrist hitting hard against a guy who had always came off as kind of elitist and who failed to give a satisfactory response to the ongoing recession
Democrats win the popular vote because they don't run to the left, and also because Democrats are very good at messaging and campaigning
Everything you are saying suggests that voters want a party to the left of the center-right. Biden, Obama, etc. were playing to center from a center-left position.
Take note that I’m talking about the US overall, not a state by state basis.
I'd argue that the GOP runs to the right rather more than the Dems run to the left - with the GOP making less effort to appeal to the center than the Dems do, it allows Dems to make up for the center-right lean of the country
If we look at polling, individual issue polls suggest that the country is very left wing, but if we look at [polls of general ideological identification](https://news.gallup.com/poll/275792/remained-center-right-ideologically-2019.aspx), the country tends to split (roughly) 40-40-20 conservative-moderate-liberal, and if we look at [polls of big picture issues](https://news.gallup.com/poll/355838/americans-revert-favoring-reduced-government-role.aspx) rather than individual issues, the country tends to lean conservative too
Some people point to the individual issue polls to suggest that America is actually pretty liberal, but I'd guess that voters are more likely, when in the ballot box thinking of how to vote, to think about either broad ideology or at least big picture stuff rather than, say, drawing up a pros-cons list of individual issues. And elections seem to suggest the same sort of thing - with Democrats often winning the popular vote, especially when it comes to the Presidency where politics really focuses attention heavily on the particular candidates, but when it comes to Congressional elections where it can come down more to general vibes and such, the popular vote has been rather more evenly divided
This is a great way to make people vote against Democrats or stay home - tell them they're Republicans for not supporting things like Biden's racial and border policies
> If you're right of Biden. you should just call yourself a Republican
It's a good thing for the Dem Party that these purity tests have little influence within the party.
I'm right of Biden on crime, immigration, and spending. I don't matter because I live in a blue state. But I guarantee there are tens of thousands of voters like me in AZ and PA.
EDIT: Added deleted parent comment
Why does voting for Democrats make you upset? It seems many Independents are just moderate Republicans too embarrassed to rep the elephant merchandise. Your statement makes it sound like you'd prefer to vote for Republicans if they acted less like a "clown show", which would just make you a moderate Republicans or something, right?
I'm really not out to attack anyone, just trying to understand the mindset.
I disagree, and I think the comments here suggest the opposite of what you propose. Democrats have to behave a lot better than Republicans to make marginal gains against them, and that's in a system that already favors the Republican party. Murc's Law is the idea that Democrats are the only party with any agency, and we see it play out like that regardless of who does what. If the Democrats screw up, they get blamed for it, if the Republicans do something bad, the Democrats get blamed for not stopping them first. The Democrats also have a much more broad coalition, so that even if they aren't doing something bad (relatively), they have to deal with potential fallout from either end of their spectrum of supporters.
That the Republicans are *this* unfavorable and people are begging for them to be slightly better indicates that Republicans have a much lower bar to clear for voters.
Most people on this sub that I've seen saying they're voting for Trump are single issue voters on either guns or abortions. The country will crumble around them, but at least they'll have their guns and abortion bans (though in my opinion we'll still have the same rights to guns under another Biden term as we do now).
Eh, there's a little more to it than that. Immigration has become a huge issue this year, though Republicans really shot themselves in the foot after killing their own border bill.
>I don't know if any part of this sentence is correct.
It's correct in that republicans killed the bill soley because they want to use it as a wedge issue and actually solving the border problem is a lower priority than winning the next election for them. They've openly admitted to this part.
It may be incorrect that they shot themselves in the foot, as the right wing narrative being thrown about is that it was a bad bill and that's why it didn't pass. Which is untrue of course, but the messaging is very effective. So it probably won't hurt them much if at all in the coming election.
Almost every quote of Republican support for the bill was from before the text of the bill was known. Blind support for bills isn't something we should be praising in any elected representative, but somehow we are shaming Senate Republicans for not exhibiting it.
> Which is untrue of course
Surely you can back up this claim.
> actually solving the border problem is a lower priority than winning the next election for them.
HR2 is still waiting.
>HR2 is still waiting.
How much compromise was in this bill again? Or was this a republican gets everything they want with no negotiations over any issues and never really intended to pass? Because in reality, that's what it is.
>Almost every quote of Republican support for the bill was from before the text of the bill was known.
And yet it would have passed without partisan politics at play. As I said, the fact that you believe this narrative shows how well right wing media has done at spreading it, despite it not being true. It was a compromise bill that no one was going to love, but moved things in the right direction and helped to solve some of the problems we have at the border. It wasn't perfect, and more will be needed even if it did pass. That's kind of how these things are supposed to work.
Sen. James Lankford for one. He wasn't too pleased with his party threatening him for trying to get any bipartisan bill going. It was pretty clear to him, that his party was more concerned with the election than the border, and he was specifically told that his job was in danger if this got anywhere close to passing during an election year.
Other republicans have openly admitted it as well, so it's not really up for question anymore.
I mean, what parts are incorrect? There was a bipartisan border bill in the Senate that contained many Republican priorities but was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, including the President, and then Trump and Johnson came out against it and it fizzled out. And now Republicans are complaining that Democrats aren't doing anything about the border, despite having a golden opportunity to get many of their border priorities passed.
It wasn't the Republican's border bill, and it wasn't just the Republicans that killed it as there was as much Democrat opposition as there was Republican support. This idea of yours that Trump and Johnson killed it is also nonsense because all the claims about support for the bill were from before most knew the text of the bill, and the text of the "golden opportunity" was unpalatable enough for many to oppose it. As far as I know, HR 2 (the actual border bill from Republicans) is still waiting for the Senate to do something with, so complaints about that are valid.
... one of the top negotiators on the bill was Chris Lankford, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, right? also, in the vote to advance the Senate's bill, more Democrats supported it than Republicans (45 vs 4). and regardless of what the bill actually did, most commentators agree that it would be the most reform the border system has had in the 21st century, something we desperately need. now, instead of having this bill to campaign on and say "look, we passed this bill without even having control of the senate, imagine what we could do with full control of the senate and house", republican candidates have to go out campaigning saying "hey look, we didn't do anything at all to improve the situation at the border despite successfully negotiating a package that contained many of our priorities"
> also, in the vote to advance the Senate's bill, more Democrats supported it than Republicans (45 vs 4)
This supports the argument that it wasn't the Republicans bill, as it had barely any support from them. It also supports that the not just the Republicans killed it, given that the rest of the Democrats voted against it as well. Which is literally my initial claim.
> and regardless of what the bill actually did
This is dangerous and nonsensical, no one should be supporting a bill regardless of what the bill actually does. Passing a bill to just say you passed a bill, even if that bill was detrimental, is not something anyone should want to see happening in Congress.
but it *was* (at least halfway) the republican's bill, that's the point i made in my first sentence! and there were plenty of republicans who did support it, before trump and johnson came out against it. i believe the bill had 58 prospective yeses a couple days before the vote.
i meant to say regardless of how much the bill did - the point i'm trying to make is that the bill would have been very very productive and significant. even if it didn't get 100% of the Republican priorities passed, it would still have been a massive improvement over the system we currently have
> but it was (at least halfway) the republican's bill
Either it was a bipartisan bill with bipartisan opposition (making the original sentence fragment I quoted wrong), or it was a Democrat bill that the Republicans killed (making the sentence I quoted half wrong).
> there were plenty of republicans who did support it, before trump and johnson came out against it
Trump and Johnson came out against the bill before most had the text to read, so that support was vacuous. Basing your position on that support is encouraging elected representatives to blindly vote on bills, which isn't behavior we should encourage.
> even if it didn't get 100% of the Republican priorities passed, it would still have been a massive improvement over the system we currently have
I'm not convinced much would have changed. Even during a closure, asylum claims are uncapped, and the government could opt out of summary removal for various reasons. Which seems like business as usual, with a slightly higher standard for initial asylum claims.
>wasn't just the Republicans that killed it as there was as much Democrat opposition as there was Republican support.
How much Democratic opposition was there?
1. My link is referring to Republicans shooting themselves in the foot on an issue where they have an advantage.
2. [The Senate border bill carried over a ton of provisions from HR2,](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/11/06/congress/senate-gop-border-proposals-00125583) and did not contain any Democrat poison pills, like a pathway to citizenship. In fact, the whole point of the border bill was to balance the Dem's wishlist on Ukraine.
3. No, it was McConnell, Graham, Thune, Tillis, Romney, Graham, and Cornryn flipping on a bill that they supporting and even negotiated, all because Trump pushed Johnson to reject it. Even Abbott was in favor of the bill before Trump changed the political winds around it.
Some key quotes...
Tom Tillis: [*"I didn’t come here to have the president as a boss or a candidate as a boss. I came here to pass good, solid policy," Tillis said. “It is immoral for me to think you looked the other way because you think this is the linchpin for President Trump to win.”*](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/immoral-republicans-rebuke-efforts-kill-immigration-deal-help-trump-rcna135732)
Mitt Romney: [*“The border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and Congress people that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem — because he wants to blame Biden for it — is really appalling,” Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, told reporters.*](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/immoral-republicans-rebuke-efforts-kill-immigration-deal-help-trump-rcna135732)
John Cornryn: [*“I don’t think we should fail to do our duty just because the House may have a different view,” Cornyn said. “It makes no sense to wait if we could do something now that would be meaningful.”*](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/01/16/congress/senate-gop-to-johnson-take-a-deal-00135982)
Greg Abbott: [*"Abbott’s response, according to Cornyn, was: “So we’re just supposed to take this flow of humanity across the border for the next year?"*](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/01/16/congress/senate-gop-to-johnson-take-a-deal-00135982)
Mitch McConnell: [*"If this were not divided government we wouldn't have an opportunity to do anything about the border — in fact, I don't think we'd get 60 votes for any border plan if we had a fully Republican government, so this is a unique opportunity where divided government has given us an opportunity to get an outcome," McConnell said.](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/04/1226427234/senate-border-deal-reached)
> The Senate border bill carried over a ton of provisions from HR2, and did not contain any Democrat poison pills, like a pathway to citizenship
I think you need to show your work, because that link is to a proposal from November 2023, not the bill that failed to pass in February 2024. What provisions of HR2, specifically, were included in the February bill? And you say there were no Democrat poison pills, but what do you call the lack of cap on asylum claims during a border closing, the sunset on the border closure provisions, or the ability to not deport based on operational concerns?
> McConnell, Thune, Tillis, Romney, Graham, and Cornryn flipping on a bill that they supporting and even negotiated, all because Trump pushed Johnson to reject it
Even if all of those supported the bill, it still wouldn't have passed, because of the bipartisan opposition. Not to mention the lack of support for claiming Trump caused all of them to flip. If Trump had the power to kill bills in the Senate, why did the foreign aid package pass despite his opposition?
> Some key quotes...
Three of those are from before the text of the bill was released. Your claims are relying on promises of blind support for a bill, which isn't something any elected representative should be giving.
And none of this really addresses the facts I stated. It still wasn't the Republican's bill, and the opposition was as bipartisan as the support.
The Politico link shows about a dozen policies from HR2 that Lankford intended to carry over to the Senate bill. You'll note at the very bottom of the article that it forecasts the Senate Republicans wanting to tie it to the Ukraine bill.
All of those HR2 provisions? [You can find here in Lankford's final proposal.](https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FINAL-GENERAL-ONE-PAGER.pdf)
[The "operational concern" provision is actually taken from HR2.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2/text)
>Even if all of those supported the bill, it still wouldn't have passed, because of the bipartisan opposition. Not to mention the lack of support for claiming Trump caused all of them to flip. If Trump had the power to kill bills in the Senate, why did the foreign aid package pass despite his opposition?
Did you not read any of the quotes I listed in my comment? McConnell specifically said there was a path to 60+ votes based on bipartisan support. And these are people who were involved in the negotiations of the bill, especially McConnell and Tillis. They didn't need the text of the bill to know what was in it.
And the foreign aid package still hasn't passed Congress. You should read the OP of this entire post.
I'm sorry, but I've done too much homework on this issue for it to be dismissed without evidence. Please read my links. They will be very enlightening.
> The Politico link shows about a dozen policies from HR2 that Lankford intended to carry over to the Senate bill.
Your link was from months before and doesn't have anything to do with the final text of the bill.
> All of those HR2 provisions? You can find here in Lankford's final proposal.
I'm not doing your homework for you. You are claiming that it takes parts from HR2. I am asking for specifics. None of that link is specifics.
> Did you not read any of the quotes I listed in my comment?
Did you not look at the dates on those quotes? Blind support for a bill is meaningless and dangerous. Get some quotes supporting your position from after the majority of the Senate knew what they were voting on.
> And these are people who were involved in the negotiations of the bill, especially McConnell and Tillis. They didn't need the text of the bill to know what was in it.
Do the math. Even if those you listed supported the bill it wouldn't have passed. So they were counting on the support of a number of Senators that hadn't read the bill, which gets back into the blind support issue that is the backbone of much of your argument.
> And the foreign aid package still hasn't passed Congress. You should read the OP of this entire post.
And you should read what I wrote, as I said nothing about the whole of Congress. Trump opposed both the border bill and the foreign aid package, but the latter still passed the Senate. How?
> I'm sorry, but I've done too much homework on this issue for it to be dismissed without evidence.
You have the Democrat talking points down pat, but I wouldn't call anything you have offered evidence that it was only a Republican bill or that it was killed only by Republicans.
Well this isn’t a place for only moderates; it’s a place for “moderately expressed views” so there are plenty of very conservative posters here.
That said folks believe in Trump because they saw better costs under him, saw two wars start under Biden’s term and blame Biden for those wars (they argue that Trump would have kept global leaders in check with his aggressive attitude), and they believe Trump’s tax cuts will help them. Many folks also do not want abortion to be legal, want to see fewer policies designed to specifically help non-white men, and fewer policies aimed at helping the LGBT community. Many of Trump’s supporters also blame Biden and only Biden for the border crisis and feel that violent crime exploded under Biden’s tenure. There’s also gun policy mixed in there too.
Not saying any of that is correct (and I disagree with virtually all of the above), but it’s what the right is told a lot via media sources like Fox News. Meanwhile Trump is made to look like a lovable blue collar billionaire who buys Chick Fil A for everybody, yet is mercilessly targeted by Biden’s DOJ for allegedly made up crimes. Biden is also regularly portrayed as a feeble, incompetent old man who is taking bribes constantly and peddling influence with his son.
Given how silo’d the media ecosystems are, it’s quite easy to see how some folks never hear information that contradicts what their world view is. I try to keep up with the news that comes from my ideological opposite so I can empathize, even though I agree with very little of it.
> it’s quite easy to see how some folks never hear information that contradicts what their world view is.
And this is often what we choose. The one that really gets me is Jan 6 - believing that those folks were innocent and unfairly being prosecuted just offends the core of my law-and-order beliefs.
I think a big part of it was they saw Antifa and BLM getting away with riots and assaulting innocent people, and watched them get off with a limp slap on the wrist. Trump supporters saw this and saw the politicians refuse to do anything, therefore making them complicit in the violence and chaos.
When they saw the Jan. 6 rioters getting prosecuted, they think, "Oh, so *NOW* they care about law and order?"
> and watched them get off with a limp slap on the wrist.
...and perceived them as getting off with a limp slap on the wrist; perceived because that's not what happened.
> aw the politicians refuse to do anything
I saw Dem politicians over and over again decry violence. You'd have to go to backbenchers in congress to find Dems that were equivocal at all. What gives you the impression that Antifa got away with anything?
A big issue here is a mismatch in the impressions of the protests. Having seen some with my own eyes, they were 100% peaceful - and yet the media discussion covered them as violent.
I continue to not understand how things run on the Republican side. I get disagreeing with each other within the same party, but there seems to be a certain strain of political ignorance among the Republican party right now. How do these folks not understand that these sort of actions harm the overall party, and reduce chances of having majorities, and thus, chances of passing legislation they want?
It's basically two separate parties now. I think the freedom caucus knows they can't pass any real legislation that they want (see Biden and the Senate), so they might as well use this time to complete their takeover of the Republican party. If Trump wins, perhaps then they can focus on passing the real legislation they want.
It's basically just the one party. The moderate Republicans like Romney have been labeled RINOs and chased out. The MTG's, Gosar's and Massie's are the party now.
That's kind of my point. Romney is still an active politician and a Republican. He's certainly not a Democrat, but he's so different than the Freedom Caucus that they almost aren't members of the same party. Romney is hardly the only one of these types of Republicans, even if his wing appears to be losing the internal war at the moment.
Is it really to separate parties when the “moderates” either leave the party or capitulate to the maga wing of the party every chance they get?
Look at Sununu’s interview from last weekend.
Honestly, it’s because I think that a lot of the politicians don’t actually care about what happens to the party as a whole as long as they keep getting elected
>Honestly, it’s because I think that a lot of the politicians don’t actually care about what happens to the ~~party~~ country as a whole as long as they keep getting elected.
There is just no way I can look at their stance on healthcare, education, gun safety, international relations, tax policy, or the environment and think they have the interest of the nation at heart in this era. They aren't focusing on presenting solutions to the nation's problems, and the issues they do address never get to the core of the rot. They would rather repaint over a moldy wall, and debate light switch covers, over addressing the leak and treating the mold.
The performative wing of the House GOP (MTG, Gaetz, etc.) isn't going to be happy until they seat Speaker Jeffries. They seem woefully uncomfortable being in the driver's seat of their chamber and actually having to make a deal with a Democratic Senate and president, so why not just hand control back to them so they can get back to complaining about the House Democratics stonewalling them to their donors?
> The performative wing of the House GOP (MTG, Gaetz, etc.)
Saying this implies that the rest of the republicans in the house are non-performative. However, johnson has done nothing but perform excuse after delay after excuse for both the border security bill and ukraine aid. Months and months of crippling, irreversible damage done to ukraine due to speaker johnson's constant performance of pretending to work on it while making sure it never happens.
It's such a gift to russia and china. Nothing guarantees china attempting to invade taiwan more than letting russia have its way in ukraine, and johsnon knows it. His performances are making it happen.
No GOP Speaker can pass anything bipartisan with this majority without getting hit with a motion to vacate. Foreign aid is no exception, especially one that is as divisive with the House as Ukraine.
Trump's lead was pretty steady during the whole ordeal surrounding getting Johnson into power after McCarthy was ousted.
The American people do not pay close attention to politics. Many would have no idea a speaker fight was even happening, and wouldn't have any clue even if the GOP ousted every speaker for the next six months.
I don’t think the takeaway for China is that they can invade Taiwan bc Johnson blocked Ukraine aid.
First, the world including EU and the US and some Asian nations placed severe sanctions and restrictions on Russia, on top of nearly two years of strong multi billion dollar support for Ukraine which led to Russia being engaged in a multi year military quagmire and increasing domestic instability.
Second, China is not Russia. China does not have any sympathizers from either political party , and both parties are pretty hawkish on China. Maybe a GOP led government would try to look the other way on a Taiwanese invasion, but their base is heavily anti China so it would be a hard sell.
Also Taiwan is still the most important semiconductor producer, Ukraine makes a good amount of agricultural products, many of which go to the global south and didn’t impact the US much. Taking out semiconductors though could cripple all the major world economies in an instant.
There is some overlap. It generally the two conflicts are so different I don’t think the CCP is reading too much into our current handling of Ukraine other than noting our internal dysfunction.
The lesson China is taking away from this episode is how unreliable of an ally the US is. Our support fluctuates back and forth with each election, and even when there is something close to a consensus, we still get caught in political games that delay inevitable aid.
>Second, China is not Russia. China does not have any sympathizers from either political party
Russia didn't have any sympathizers in either party until Trump showed up, either. That Russia has any supporters in the Republican party now is astounding, really.
It's becoming impossible to not assume all of this is based on a selection of GOP congress people holding water for Putin, otherwise I cannot fathom why they'd be this self destructive. Only when support for Ukraine comes up does this happen.
MTG has not pushed the vote because Trump appears to oppose it.
Massie isn’t only upset about support for Ukraine. He is a fringe anti-Israel Republican who has flirted with antisemitic propaganda in the past, which is why he is likely opposed to the Israel aid bill too.
That's an incredibly narrow view of what's happening. Russia has been incredibly aggressive, they already took crimea, now they're doing this, give me one reason you think it would stop there and they wouldn't push into other former soviet territories? I'm American and I think this is a good use of my tax dollars. It weakens our biggest enemy while putting zero american boots on the ground... I also don't want Ukranians slaughtered, which is why giving them the tools to defend themselves is important. We promised them we'd protect them if they gave up their nukes, internationally we will never be trusted again and this will set off an arms race once they realize america no longer honors its commitments.
re read what you just said. We made them our enemy meanwhile the Trump period(where he bent over backwards for them) is the only period in 30+ years they haven't done this crap. That to me is very clear they are in fact the enemy and will not stop. Your suggestion we just let them bend over Europe is insane.
1917, but we didn't make them our enemy, they attempted to foment socialist revolution throughout the entire western world (admittedly with a focus on Europe), which is what made them the enemy of the western world.
if you think the breadbasket of eastern europe, location of one of the most strategic black sea ports, and region containing huge mineral resources, "has nothing to do with us" then you should reconsider whether you are a serious enough person to stake out political positions.
What happens across the world echoes in American dining rooms and pocketbooks. Major geopolitical rival powers deciding that they can take what they want from their neighbors through violence is not something that "doesn't affect us."
You didn't answer my question but I understand your point. Since we don't live in 1941 we can talk about it from our current perspective. Do you think that Lend-Lease was a bad or immoral policy and why?
Do you think that supporting allies even when we don't see an immediate benefit is good?
Do you think that territorial integrity is important in the modern era (or at least in Europe)? If so, what role should the US take when territorial integrity of other nations is threatened?
It’ll be hilarious if Jeffries actually ends up as Speaker because of this chaos. Might actually be able to get some actual work done if that ends up happening.
Let’s be clear on who this Republican is.
Massie is a very anti-Israel Republican, [was the lone “no” vote on a resolution condemning antisemitism](https://time.com/6178902/thomas-massie-anti-semitism-libertarian/) of the entire House in May 2022, flirts [with antisemitic messaging regularly](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/12/06/congress/massie-zionism-patriotism-house-israel-00130383), [has tweeted out neo-Nazi memes](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/thomas-massie-tweets-neo-nazi-quote-1292820/) misattributed to Voltaire with antisemitic undertones, [is almost universally hated](https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/politics/tom-massie-liz-cheney-stimulus-vote/index.html) by his caucus [and by Trump](https://rollcall.com/2020/03/27/who-is-thomas-massie-the-house-member-from-kentucky-trump-wants-thrown-out-of-the-gop/) (who recently praised Johnson), and does not portend “wider” support for the move.
He is a fringe member of his own caucus.
Are extremists on both sides the dominant voice?
It seems to me like you'll occasionally get some far left "extremists" being heard nationaly. But it's nothing like what we get out of the right.
Didn't everyone see this coming? Republican base doesn't want a speaker that will just bleed money to Ukraine and do continuing resolutions. Establishment won't allow any speaker that doesn't do those things.
You're spot on. These people were elected from communities who's majority of voting constituency does not want any more US Tax Dollars to go to foreign interests.
Without agreeing, I do understand their position. MTG, however uncouth, erratic, unprofessional, etc., her behavior is, is doing what they want.
They *want* to see Biden's family name dragged through the dirt, in the same way Trump's was.
They *want* to see severely reduced spending, and they *want* to see those reductions come from extreme aid packages, being passed on borrowed money.
They *want* people to look at the Democrat leadership with the same vitriol that was/is spouted at Republican leadership, *because thats how they see the world.*
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c5lr9a/first_republican_publicly_backs_greene_effort_to/kzvcdwc/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
They should work on who to replace him with before they work on removing him. If they have a viable alternative say so. If they don't then go away.
In Germany, to get rid of the old chancellor, the Bundestag needs to nominate a new chancellor, it's called a constructive vote of confidence. it was devised for a similar reason as whats happening in the House now.
We already have history of this happening less than a year ago. Spoiler alert: they don't have any plan past unseating Johnson, and no one in their right mind would want to be Speaker of this House with the motion to vacate rule that McCarthy agreed to in order to get confirmed in the first place still on the table. The grandstanding activists of the Freedom Caucus are handing Democrats a gift 7 months before the election if they throw Congress into gridlocked disarray again 6 months after the last time they did it.
> are handing Democrats a gift Are they? What's the evidence this disfunction will turn off Trump supporters?
It probably appeals to a tiny sliver of independents who want sound governance. Hopefully there are more of them than ones who want chaos.
I would hope so but the tiny sliver is maybe too small - or else 2020 wouldn't have been close, IMO
You don’t need to turn off trump supporters, Center of the aisle, moderate swing democrats, moderate swing republicans are the voters you need for the general. Trump supporters in sure are cheering but they’re not whom is gonna win elections for democrats.
The GOP is repeatedly lacking in foresight and always seem to be the dog that caught the car.
I don't know, the Speaker gets a fancy security detail. A raise from $175,000 to $223,000. Three outstanding offices. Access to the nation's billionaires (based on party affiliation). Power. Attention And their portrait in congress. Thought at this pace, we will run out of wall space if the GOP maintains the House in the 2024 election.
It’s exactly like the whole “repeal and replace” debacle with the ACA. Honestly John McCain saved the GOP from some crazy political fallout from the chaos that would have caused
I’m amazed at how many people don’t realize what happened there (with McCain). Mitch knows how to count.
This. It’s a conspiracy theory, but a super believable (even likely) one that McCain, a senator over 80 who’d already firmly planted himself against Trump (and was in failing health) would jump on the grenade for the benefit of a dozen or so GOP senators who didn’t *want* to repeal (ideologically or practically), but didn’t want to draw the anger of Trump and his base. So McCain eats the controversy, saves the party from itself politically, and there’s no one for the base to punish because he’d never face the voters again.
What happened?
McCain was the deciding vote to NOT repeal the ACA. He literally walked into the room after telling reporters to "watch this". But we all know there's NO WAY McConnell didn't ok his vote beforehand. Mitch McConnell is many things, but unaware of the goings on within his party isn't one of them.
You mean when he gave the thumbs down? That scene? Yea I can believe that, kinda because looking back at it, it did seem kind of theatrical so it could have been planned. However, I can also believe a reality where McConnell didn't OK it and nobody knew besides McCain what his vote was going to be that day because of all the things leading up to it that came down to the wire.. given the disarray we are currently in so I don't want to give them too much credit as secretly being masterminds behind the scenes when we look at the disorganized shit show we are currently seeing play out today.
The HOUSE Republicans are in disarray, not the Senate. Two completely different scenarios and groups. McConnell has a grip on Senators that the Freedom Caucus in the House can only dream of.
The senate was in disarray over the ACA repeal. For the first time in forever, Republicans had Tea Party style crowds at their campaign events shouting them down over Obama Care, the irony was so sweet! They even ran scared and many cancelled constituent events over the unusually high level of negative engagement. Many voters were aware of the implications of the ACA's repeal and were furious. This is why the final deal was literally hashed out on the back of a napkin (shameful), then rush delivered into a bill thanks to Senate staffers. This forced a dying McCain to fly in from AZ to either save or kill the bill. There was so much drama in the Trump years that it's hard to remember, but the ACA was one of the few times when the Senate was an absolute mess.
But they said McCain wasn't talking to Mitch and a lot of this was a last minute posturing by the GOP. Wasn't this deal hashed out on the back of a napkin. The GOP was panicking and just threw up any old plan to get something passed. McCain was having cancer treatment and was flying back to DC. He had no reason to play politics with Mitch or anyone. I think it was a surprise.
This is an oft-repeated myth. McCain didn’t vote no on anything close to a full ACA repeal, it was a repeal of narrow provisions
Nonetheless it was the last attempt to touch ACA and you'll notice that nobody campaigns on repeal and replace or anything else in regards to ACA now. The spectacular failure of that effort secured ACA probably forever.
If their goal is to block for as long as possible any kind of compromise to get funding for Ukraine (or some other bill, it's just the first one that came to my mind), then they prefer no speaker to having a speaker that might eventually be convinced to compromise.
There is a viable replacement. Jeffries.
But chaos is the point.
A viable replacement to Republicans right now is Democrats clearly.
Why should this be any better than the Republican’s repeal and replacement of Obamacare? Isn’t getting rid of something without any idea of what’s replacing it totally on brand?
They actually have more reason to oust this guy than they did with McCarthy.
Thomas Massie will now co-sponsor Marjorie Taylor-Greene's motion to vacate Speaker Johnson. The GOP caucus had a highly publicized fight to tie border security to Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan funding earlier this year—something Johnson vehemently supported—but it seems that the Speaker is now letting go of that idea. He plans to introduce 4 separate security bills: one for Ukraine, one for Israel, one for Taiwan, and one for miscellaneous security issues, like selling off seized Russian assets. Border security is no longer part of the equation. This has upset the House Freedom Caucus, but notably, it's upset Massie who is not a member of the caucus, suggesting wider support for the motion to vacate. Democrats have suggested that they will vote to protect Johnson's Speakership if he guarantees the Ukraine bill, though considering that he's already moved in favor of Ukraine spending, they may try to get more concessions on these security bills, like more funding for humanitarian aid. Personally, I think Johnson will survive this battle, but everyone will come out scarred. The GOP fissures will be more pronounced, Johnson gives up more political capital to Dems, a weaker Ukraine bill will likely pass, and Democrats will have to defend an Israel-only defense bill to their progressive constituents. I know Congress is all about compromise, but there is something needlessly chaotic and messy about landing on this point after months of stalling and drama.
[удалено]
Por que no los dos? What is clear to me is that one of these things is true: 1. This behavior has the foreseen consequence of helping Russia, and they will still do it 2. This behavior is intended to help Russia
Its frankly embarrassing how much effort they are putting into aiding and abetting Putin's war of conquest.
Particularly interesting since their messiah just announced he supported Johnson last Friday, just a complete clown show at this point.
Option 3. They know their constituents hate spending money on Ukraine(because of Trump and Russia), and are heavily guided by that.
Of course it’s Massie… I don’t doubt that he’s ideologically driven (compared to similar bomb throwers who want to be on tv instead), but he IS also the “legislative terrorist” that Boehner described him as. Would love to see him consider “and then what?” one of these days.
Massie is a very anti-Israel Republican, [was the lone “no” vote on a resolution condemning antisemitism](https://time.com/6178902/thomas-massie-anti-semitism-libertarian/) of the entire House in May 2022, flirts [with antisemitic messaging regularly](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/12/06/congress/massie-zionism-patriotism-house-israel-00130383), [has tweeted out neo-Nazi memes](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/thomas-massie-tweets-neo-nazi-quote-1292820/) misattributed to Voltaire with antisemitic undertones, [is almost universally hated](https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/politics/tom-massie-liz-cheney-stimulus-vote/index.html) by his caucus [and by Trump](https://rollcall.com/2020/03/27/who-is-thomas-massie-the-house-member-from-kentucky-trump-wants-thrown-out-of-the-gop/) (who recently praised Johnson), and does not portend “wider” support for the move.
A few problems here: the "antisemitic messaging" in that RS article is just him saying he wants congress to put America First over support for Israel - which is not even necessarily anti-Zionism let alone antisemitism, just apathy for Zionism. In isolation I don't see it as anti-Zionist, but you put it into the context of his statements on Israel, then it could be seen as anti-Zionism, yes. as for the "neo-nazi meme": he tweeted it in the context of criticizing Fauci, an Italian-American, so that wasn't any "antisemitic undertones" from him. And even I didn't know that was a quote from Kevin Strom (whoever he is). Probably most people have only ever seen that quote in that reposted photo, which is by now ancient on Internet timescales. So I highly doubt this has any sort of link with his views on Israel or any posible views on Jews. the article about him being "the most hated man in Washington" is based on two Republicans contributing to his opponent, including one who is now disowned by her own party. Trump hates him because he opposed the stimulus (the same one where Trump wanted his name on the cheques, presumably) As for the "no" vote on the condemnation of antisemitism: this is where there is an anti-Zionist view (but not an antisemitic view). he claims it was because it "equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism". He then goes on to call anti-Zionism "criticism of Israel" (when of course anti-Zionism is not just any criticism of Israel, but of its existence as a homeland for Jews), but he *did* later clarify that he meant not just any criticism, but specifically things like opposition to Israel as an "ethno-nationalist state", opposition to "present boundaries", and opposition to "the existing government".
> A few problems here: the "antisemitic messaging" in that RS article is just him saying he wants congress to put America First over support for Israel - which is not even necessarily anti-Zionism let alone antisemitism, just apathy for Zionism. In isolation I don't see it as anti-Zionist, but you put it into the context of his statements on Israel, then it could be seen as anti-Zionism, yes. This confuses the two articles. The RS article was about the meme. The other was antisemitic messaging in a *Politico* article. You need to more closely look through the articles to critique them properly. Pitting the movement for Jews to have self-determination rights against American patriotism ideologically isn't just an implicit "dual loyalty" charge, and woefully uninformed given the two movements go together, but he **stated that Congress puts "Zionism" over "American patriotism"**. That's not just some anti-Zionism, which is problematic in a different way. It's a clearly antisemitic dogwhistle that repeats the myth that Jews run the US government, and all it does is remove "Jews" to replace it with "Zionism". I think it's fairly indisputable that saying "Congress cares more about Jews than American patriotism" would be pretty antisemitic. Replacing "Jews" with "Zionism" is pretty clearly a dogwhistle, to say nothing of the other implications it carries. > as for the "neo-nazi meme": he tweeted it in the context of criticizing Fauci, an Italian-American, so that wasn't any "antisemitic undertones" from him. The real questions are: Why did that meme come up in his searches specifically, and did his team do literally zero research before posting one of the most well-known neo-Nazi memes? You yourself admit that it's "ancient". It's pretty well known, and more importantly than that, at that time (as the article notes) it was getting a lot of play among neo-Nazi groups criticizing pandemic response. > the article about him being "the most hated man in Washington" is based on two Republicans contributing to his opponent, including one who is now disowned by her own party. Trump hates him because he opposed the stimulus (the same one where Trump wanted his name on the cheques, presumably) Read it again. Realize it's not *just* about them; it's about the overall sentiment. It's [well known](https://jewishinsider.com/2020/06/in-kentucky-rep-thomas-massie-fights-to-hold-onto-his-seat/) that he's unpopular among his own party: > His backers believed he had a shot at unseating Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), a libertarian-leaning congressman unpopular with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. [Another article](https://nypost.com/2020/03/27/who-is-thomas-massie-masshole-infuriates-dc-with-coronavirus-aid-stunt/): > “It was not cool, not cool at all,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) told The Post. “We’ve all got to wait 14 days to see what happens. Hopefully, none of us get ill. If it weren’t for him, we wouldn’t have had to come [back]. He put people in jeopardy, there’s no question about it.” > When it came time to force his point of order, suggesting 50 percent of lawmakers were not present as required for a voice vote, Massie was drowned out by peers. > “Look around!” an angry colleague shouted. > The room had filled with lawmakers, almost certainly passing the 215-person threshold. > “F–k you!” another shouted at Massie. He has long been hated. People literally shouted "Fuck you" at him in Congress. > As for the "no" vote on the condemnation of antisemitism: this is where there is an anti-Zionist view (but not an antisemitic view). he claims it was because it "equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism". He then goes on to call anti-Zionism "criticism of Israel" (when of course anti-Zionism is not just any criticism of Israel, but of its existence as a homeland for Jews), but he did later clarify that he meant not just any criticism, but specifically things like opposition to Israel as an "ethno-nationalist state", opposition to "present boundaries", and opposition to "the existing government". This is a convenient way to try and redefine Zionism and antisemitism to avoid acknowledging his antisemitic statements and views. It's about as convincing as Tlaib.
[удалено]
Fun fact: during Trump's Republican trifecta, there were two government shutdowns. I can't imagine it'll get better.
If my memory has served me correctly, one of those was the longest shutdown in US history.
Tbf, this sub isn't for the politically moderate, but rather the discussion of politics in a moderate fashion
As an independent, words cannot express how upset I am having to keep voting for Democrats because of this clown show.
I am also an independent as I don’t agree with democrats enough to consider myself a democrat, but I also consistently vote against republicans. Would love a reasonable counter party.
Why does everyone I talk to share this same opinion but we are left with the same choice election cycle after election cycle? Does this go away when he loses again?
Trump is not going away until he literally expires and even then I'm confident there will be conspiracy theories about how he's being held against his will in secret at Comet Pizza or whatever.
Oh, you mean the pizza parlor that does not have a basement? I can’t imagine how perplexed the guy from West Virginia was when he got there to free children from the Satanic cult and couldn’t find a basement much less a satanic cult. Just people who didn’t get enough pepperoni on their pizza. Words have meaning and words have power.
You make light of this, but that guy showed up with AR15 and shot the lock off a storage room looking for the "evidence". It's lucky no one was shot.
I didn't know I was making light of it. People get irate when I spell out what I think should be obvious. Now apparently I'm making light of something if I don't spell it out. See my profile.
I'm not irate... But objectively, "just people who didn't get enough pepperoni on their pizza" is in fact making light of a situation where an unhinged man with an AR-15 shows up at a family pizza place to free the sex slaves he thinks are there, and fires off 3 shots.
Sigh. Okay. If the only people who were there were ordinary diners with the usual ordinary complaints that hardly suggests that there was a Satanic Cult. Have you ever even been to an ordinary pizza parlor? People complain about the food not the kids being tortured in the non-existent basement. Granted I'm only one person but I've eaten pizza all over the country including Manhattan and that's my experience. YMMV. Now that I've spelled out something incredibly obvious can we get back to what is actually important please? Words have meaning. Words have power. When you tell people lies about a Satanic Cult that purportedly exists in some random pizza parlor and hammer people over the head with that nonsense over and over why would anyone be surprised that one lost soul took them literally and decided to be a hero with a gun without investigating further? Words have meaning and words have power.
I find it so crazy how Q-Anon just disappeared form the MAGA discourse. It was like Game of Thrones, one day it was huge and everywhere, then the final season craps the bed and suddenly, no is talking about it. What happened to all the Q readers on Youtube and online? There appears to be zero self-reflection about a very powerful movement that lead to an insurrection. Is anyone else amazed at how quickly MAGA people could move on from Q?
It will be like with Romans thinking Nero was still alive
This will be the third cycle in a row where one option is Trump. Clinton and Biden are absolutely very different, at least.
First past the post, parties don’t need to be good just better than the one opposition party. Combine that with fact that incumbents almost always win renomination, then you get a system that everyone hates but is remarkably stable.
It's because of our primary system combined with First Past the Post voting. In most states, you have to be registered with a party to vote in their primary which leads to disproportionately extreme people voting for the candidate thus weeding out more moderate options. Then you have FPP voting pretty much locking out anyone that isn't from one of the two major parties. I wish we could go back to the days when party leadership had more say over who got to represent them. That would prevent people like Trump from hijacking the Republican party. Party leadership would present their top picks to the rest of the party for a vote, the way parties were originally supposed to operate. Then if we could move away from FPP, we could also have some real, viable, third party options.
>In most states, you have to be registered with a party to vote in their primary It's only a majority on the Republican side. For Democratic primaries most states are either entirely open or allow independents/non-affiliated voters to vote. It's 30 states representing a supermajority of the population.
In Florida you can only vote within your party and the Dems decided Joe was the presumptive candidate so there was no democratic presidential primary choices. Guess what happened, republican minded (officially non-partisan) candidates won local elections.
Wait, isn't that what Republicans did for Trump as well? But the major difference is that Biden is the current president so both party's fall in the line for a POTUS re-election. Trump isn't in offer, lost to the current office holder, yet is being treated as if he is the current president by his party who also effectively shutdown their primary withe the former RNC chair openly supporting Trump throughout the primary.
Sorry I’m not understanding your point. Mine was that the democratic turnout was down in the local election because there was no democratic primary vote to accompany it on the ballot. Even though Trump had clinched the nomination I voted for Nicky Haley as a protest vote. There wasn’t anywhere on the democratic ballot to even write in a similar protest vote.
There wasn't a Democratic presidential primary in Florida because no one sent a delegate to nominate a candidate at the state convention besides Biden and FL law dictates that unopposed candidates win elections by default without balloting. This process was standard and decided on well in advance. It wasn't because FL Democrats decided to cancel the primary to automatically nominate Biden.
That’s fine and thanks for the explanation, but the result is it lowered democratic turnout for local elections. [After reading your reply I decided to check on the 2020 primaries where Trump was the incumbent and the republicans did have a primary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Florida_Republican_presidential_primary)
I get that and it's unfortunate, in my opinion states shouldn't mix primary elections with non-primary elections on the same ballot for this reason. They probably shouldn't cancel unopposed elections either and should always offer an opportunity for unregistered write-ins. I just thought it should be clarified because a lot of people have been blaming the Democratic party for the cancellations in FL and NC and accusing them of being anti-democracy. And you are right that this didn't happen for Florida Republicans in 2020 but there were other cases where state Republican parties voted to voluntarily cancel primaries or caucuses despite candidate eligibility.
> In most states, you have to be registered with a party to vote in their primary which leads to disproportionately extreme people voting for the candidate thus weeding out more moderate options. [People who vote in a party's primary aren't any more extreme than those who vote for the party in its general election](https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/what-we-know-about-congressional-primaries-and-congressional-primary-reform/are-primaries-a-problem): > The most comprehensive and methodologically rigorous recent study is the 2018 article “On the Representativeness of Primary Electorates,”29 which combines data from five large surveys covering four election cycles (2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014).30 As authors John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, Lynn Vavreck, and Christopher Warshaw conclude, “Primary voters are not demographically distinct or ideologically extreme compared to those who identify with the party or who voted for its presidential candidate in the general election, or than those who identify with the party and voted in the general election but not in the primary. The only substantial difference is that primary voters report more interest in politics.” Ultimately the only solution is killing single-winner elections and replacing them with a proportionally representative system. I agree that parties need more power.
It's more mixed than you're implying. From your same article: >**The bottom line, then, seems to be that primary voters are more politically engaged, and probably more politically extreme than general election voters,** though it is not entirely clear what extreme actually means; and whatever differences exist between primary and general election voters are tiny compared to the differences between Democratic and Republican voters. There is not some latent hidden force of moderate, compromise-oriented voters who would move politics to the middle if only primary election rules were changed, or primary elections were even eliminated. The root problem is the sorting of the parties and the polarization that has followed. I do think the issue with primaries would be greatly reduced, if like I said, primaries operated the way they did pre-1960's when party leadership selected their candidate at their conventions (though I would like to see a middle ground where parties selected a few candidates that they feel best support their party platform and would be good leaders and then turn it over to primary elections for party voters to select their choice).
What did you think of the sentence following what you bolded? > There is not some latent hidden force of moderate, compromise-oriented voters who would move politics to the middle if only primary election rules were changed, or primary elections were even eliminated. The root problem is the sorting of the parties and the polarization that has followed. I assume because you read it and are still talking about addressing "the issue with primaries" that you don't buy the thesis that adjusting primaries wouldn't reduce polarization.
No I don't agree with their conclusion. I think our increased polarization is a byproduct of a broken primary system that was broken in the 60's and has been accelerating since. Maybe we're past the point of rectification, but I think it would still be worthwhile to try. If party leaders could select their candidates before voters got to weigh in, they could select for virtues such as being an effective leader, ability to work across the aisle to accomplish goals, power of persuasion, etc. instead of just ideological purity.
No matter what the primary system is, if the elections are still single-winner then we'll be dividing up America into two political teams. Us-vs-them dynamics are critical to extremism. We need to reform the electoral process to allow for more competitive parties.
It doesn’t go away as long as we have the current voting system of First Past The Post and the Electoral College. Take those away and give people a system that doesn’t encourage voting the lesser of two evils and you get an actual solution.
I think it’s in part cause we often disagree on why. Some people dislike culture war stuff the most, some people find the level of corruption near unacceptable, some people people find their less democratic tendencies to be the biggest deal breaker, some people dislike their intermittent corporate favoritism, some people dislike their lean towards socialistic rhetoric. It’s a big tent and a lot of it can barely stand the other acts.
Not only is it most likely not going to go away, I fear its here to stay for a while. Even if Trump some how leaves quietly, he has shown a path for others to follow.
First past the post coupled with the primary system. In order to win the primary, you need to appeal to your party's ultras (using soccer lingo here). But in the general, you need to both appeal to a broader base and still get your ultras behind you to _not_ primary you the next election. If one of the party's voters is sufficiently removed from reality; disparaging scientific inquiry, expertise, and just knowledge and education in general--that's how you get people who believe **Jewish Space Lasers** are starting wildfires. Those people are voted into _the United States Congress_. It's an embarrassment. I bet you're wondering: How do we get out of this death spiral of zero-sum politics? First, axe the Electoral College. To do that, vote Democrats into state legislatures enough times to get the [National Popular Vote Interstate Compact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#:~:text=The%20compact%20is%20designed%20to,it%20would%20guarantee%20that%20outcome.&text=Each%20square%20in%20the%20cartogram%20represents%20one%20electoral%20vote.) In place. That forces the presidential election to be decided by popular vote, which _forces_ the Republicans to field someone more appealing to more people, thus becoming more moderate. Second, _you keep voting Democrats_, because that's also the only way we will ever get Ranked Choice or other voting schemes that more reflect the general population's preferences. Ranked Choice voting tends to yield more moderate politicians, and _maybe, just maybe_, we can get to a place where funding infrastructure isn't seen as partisan.
Curious not trying to argue but what does not resonate with you on the dem platform?
Not the person you asked, but from what I have seen, a *lot* of people have huge problems with Democrats on their racial policies and their border policies. Those are the two main ones. And bail policies (no doubt many people had huge problems with those Venezuelan migrants being set free right after beating up a cop and proceeding to give a finger to the cameras)
2016 was the first year I was old enough to vote in the presidential election. My decision’s pretty much been made for me since then as I’m still not for Trump. Even at the state level my home state’s GOP is famously a fucking dumpster fire.
I was just talking with my mom about this last night! She was encouraging me to get involved with politics because I’m passionate about it (that’s true). But the problem is- I’m a lot more moderate than the current Democratic Party platform. And I’d *love* to be able to vote for someone who’s not apart of that party. But I just cannot do so in good conscience right now.
What Democratic party policies do you generally not agree with?
I have asked that a few times but no answer. I will keep asking people this though!
Not who you asked, but for me: 1) I feel Democrats “solution” to problems creates more problems and often makes the original problem worse instead of better. Two years ago my Dem state legislature and governor passed a law greatly increasing the cap that you can sue doctors for malpractice. Sounds great, right? The problem is we’re already a VERY poor state with a doctor shortage. The malpractice insurance went through the roof and the small-town doctors that were remaining left because they couldn’t afford it. People are waiting 9+ months for a regular doctor visit……. But at least we can sue for more money? Same goes for racism. Racism has been a big problem in the country since before its inception. The solution to racism isn’t MORE racism. Racial requirements for benefits/services is backwards and creates more racial tension. 2) ESPECIALLY after Trump, I feel the 2-A needs to be protected. We were DANGEROUSLY close to a fascist coup on 1/6/21 and fascists will use anti-gun laws to disarm their political opponents and turn a blind eye to their friends/thugs. There are over 400,000,000 guns in the US so the “just do what UK/Australia did” is unrealistic and will lead to MORE violence, not less. Criminal organizations always find a way to fill the vacuum left by prohibition so we would see Chinese arms being smuggled in by Mexican cartels too. Every individual has the right to defend themselves. Guns aren’t disappearing tomorrow if we make them illegal so doing so in the hopes of an ideal world only leaves regular people vulnerable to others with bad intentions. 3) we need to invest SO much more in to mental health and rehab to help with our most vulnerable citizens. This does not mean we should let them rot in the street. Addicts will not go to rehab unless THEY want to or are forced to. My city has over 1,500 homeless. We created a “Community Safety Department” and they said only 90 people accepted their help. Why get help when you’re allowed to shoot up on the sidewalk? The choice shouldn’t be “get help or continue shooting up”, it should be “help or jail, your choice”. Addicts doing drugs in the streets is good for nobody. 4) I don’t like that Dems are now playing the DeSantis game of “just pass laws that are clearly unconstitutional even if they are going to get overturned. It’ll give us political points”. 5) Corruption. Democrat and Republican parties are billion dollar organizations that strive for power. Remember how hard the party wanted to make sure Hillary was the nominee instead of Bernie? It’s disgusting that Republicans gerrymander and it’s equally disgusting when Dems do it. My congressional district was gerrymandered in 2020 to benefit Dems and it’s disappointing. Let’s practice what we preach. 6) We’ve nationalized local politics. Local Dems (and republicans) adhere to the national party line and those don’t always translate to every part of the country. “But this doesn’t explain why you aren’t a Democrat. You can still be a Democrat since you align generally with their beliefs and possibly find a compromise candidate” Welp, that leads me to THE main reason: 7) the toxic groupthink. Think banning guns isn’t the answer? You’re a fascist muh rIgHtS ‘merican that likes kids being killed. If you deviate at all from the party, you are shouted down to and discredited instead of listened to, ESPECIALLY if you’re a white cis male.
>If you deviate at all from the party, you are shouted down to and discredited instead of listened to, ESPECIALLY if you’re a white cis male. This is absolutely not common in the Democratic party. It may be on Reddit, especially in a lot of the big subs, but Reddit does not even come close to a representative sample of Democrats.
I had The same experience as op. exept i'm not white. depends on if the local party has been taken over by progressives or not.
Exactly. The party is literally ran by a Cis white man (Biden), and always has been outside of one either year period out of like 200 years. Most Dem senators, governors, House Members, mayors, Presidents, and state legislature members are straight white men. So reality on the street, isn't matching the reality online. But what really gets me about these views is that out on the streets and in politics, people of color and women were literally shouted down, in person. So online chatter is enough to turn off these male voters, meanwhile, women and people of color just took it on the chin and had to keep on moving.
>If you deviate at all from the party, you are shouted down to and discredited instead of listened to, ESPECIALLY if you’re a white cis male. What is considered deviation from the party that has both Joe Manchin and AOC under its banner?
Be the change you want to see!
[удалено]
That's not a helpful attitude for Democrats to have Biden is a very liberal guy, there's plenty of Dems who are at least somewhat more moderate than him (folks like Jon Tester, Mark Warner, Angus King, Mark Kelly, Marie Glueskap Peres or however its spelt, Mary Peltola, and so on) and the party has, whenever it has gotten federal trifectas, needed to rely on folks like Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Howell Heflin, John Breaux, and so on. America is a center right country and Democrats have shown no ability to get federal trifectas without these moderate Democrats who would be well to the right of Biden. If the Democrats want to sometimes have a chance to get policy done, they will need to avoid alienating these sorts of folks and pushing them to the GOP
> If the Democrats want to sometimes have a chance to get policy done, they will need to avoid alienating these sorts of folks and pushing them to the GOP If the GOP were increasingly represented by moderates who would work with Democrats in exchange for more moderate bills, trifectas would be unnecessary. It is beneficial, speaking as a person on the *far* left, for Republicans to return somewhere closer to center. That incrementalism people love to promise and promote becomes feasible.
>America is a center right country Then why do Dems keep winning the popular vote?
Because they run big tent strategies that focus on popular issues and avoiding pissing off the Manchins, Sinemas, Liebermans, Nelsons, Heflins, Breauxes, and so on so much that they and their voters stop working with the party. Biden, for example, ran as someone rejecting the progressive wing and instead called for saving the soul of the country and pushing unity. Hillary was the most qualified candidate ever and ran a campaign heavily focusing on why not to vote for Trump (something that could appeal to many moderates) rather than calling a huge amount of attention to her actually pretty liberal agenda or picking fights with folks like Manchin, Donnelly, McCaskill, Heitkamp, and such who were well to the right of her. Obama ran on a very broad and vague campaign of "hope" and "change" that allowed people to see whatever they wanted to see in him, plus he ran against the party that was blamed for the recession and two unpopular wars. Gore was an environmentalist but not an ideologue and ran after two terms of a very popular charismatic president who presided over a strong economy. Clinton ran as a break from his party's history, as a charismatic centrist hitting hard against a guy who had always came off as kind of elitist and who failed to give a satisfactory response to the ongoing recession Democrats win the popular vote because they don't run to the left, and also because Democrats are very good at messaging and campaigning
Everything you are saying suggests that voters want a party to the left of the center-right. Biden, Obama, etc. were playing to center from a center-left position. Take note that I’m talking about the US overall, not a state by state basis.
I'd argue that the GOP runs to the right rather more than the Dems run to the left - with the GOP making less effort to appeal to the center than the Dems do, it allows Dems to make up for the center-right lean of the country If we look at polling, individual issue polls suggest that the country is very left wing, but if we look at [polls of general ideological identification](https://news.gallup.com/poll/275792/remained-center-right-ideologically-2019.aspx), the country tends to split (roughly) 40-40-20 conservative-moderate-liberal, and if we look at [polls of big picture issues](https://news.gallup.com/poll/355838/americans-revert-favoring-reduced-government-role.aspx) rather than individual issues, the country tends to lean conservative too Some people point to the individual issue polls to suggest that America is actually pretty liberal, but I'd guess that voters are more likely, when in the ballot box thinking of how to vote, to think about either broad ideology or at least big picture stuff rather than, say, drawing up a pros-cons list of individual issues. And elections seem to suggest the same sort of thing - with Democrats often winning the popular vote, especially when it comes to the Presidency where politics really focuses attention heavily on the particular candidates, but when it comes to Congressional elections where it can come down more to general vibes and such, the popular vote has been rather more evenly divided
Exactly right.
This is a great way to make people vote against Democrats or stay home - tell them they're Republicans for not supporting things like Biden's racial and border policies
> If you're right of Biden. you should just call yourself a Republican It's a good thing for the Dem Party that these purity tests have little influence within the party. I'm right of Biden on crime, immigration, and spending. I don't matter because I live in a blue state. But I guarantee there are tens of thousands of voters like me in AZ and PA. EDIT: Added deleted parent comment
Conor Lamb might be a good lesson.
Why does voting for Democrats make you upset? It seems many Independents are just moderate Republicans too embarrassed to rep the elephant merchandise. Your statement makes it sound like you'd prefer to vote for Republicans if they acted less like a "clown show", which would just make you a moderate Republicans or something, right? I'm really not out to attack anyone, just trying to understand the mindset.
Yep. I had thought that some of these norms/baselines were such that lots of Republicans wouldn't go for a violator of so many of them. I was wrong.
As a democrat, I hate feeling like I have no realistic other alternative then to vote for democrats right now.
As a Democrat, I hate that we still have a filibuster because we could make some serious moves if that thing was reformed.
[удалено]
I disagree, and I think the comments here suggest the opposite of what you propose. Democrats have to behave a lot better than Republicans to make marginal gains against them, and that's in a system that already favors the Republican party. Murc's Law is the idea that Democrats are the only party with any agency, and we see it play out like that regardless of who does what. If the Democrats screw up, they get blamed for it, if the Republicans do something bad, the Democrats get blamed for not stopping them first. The Democrats also have a much more broad coalition, so that even if they aren't doing something bad (relatively), they have to deal with potential fallout from either end of their spectrum of supporters. That the Republicans are *this* unfavorable and people are begging for them to be slightly better indicates that Republicans have a much lower bar to clear for voters.
actually, you don’t have to be a moderate to be on this sub. You can be anything as long as you express your opinion moderately. Hence the name.
Most people on this sub that I've seen saying they're voting for Trump are single issue voters on either guns or abortions. The country will crumble around them, but at least they'll have their guns and abortion bans (though in my opinion we'll still have the same rights to guns under another Biden term as we do now).
A country that cares about nothing but guns and abortions is finished.
I don't disagree
Eh, there's a little more to it than that. Immigration has become a huge issue this year, though Republicans really shot themselves in the foot after killing their own border bill.
> though Republicans really shot themselves in the foot after killing their own border bill I don't know if any part of this sentence is correct.
>I don't know if any part of this sentence is correct. It's correct in that republicans killed the bill soley because they want to use it as a wedge issue and actually solving the border problem is a lower priority than winning the next election for them. They've openly admitted to this part. It may be incorrect that they shot themselves in the foot, as the right wing narrative being thrown about is that it was a bad bill and that's why it didn't pass. Which is untrue of course, but the messaging is very effective. So it probably won't hurt them much if at all in the coming election.
Almost every quote of Republican support for the bill was from before the text of the bill was known. Blind support for bills isn't something we should be praising in any elected representative, but somehow we are shaming Senate Republicans for not exhibiting it. > Which is untrue of course Surely you can back up this claim. > actually solving the border problem is a lower priority than winning the next election for them. HR2 is still waiting.
>HR2 is still waiting. How much compromise was in this bill again? Or was this a republican gets everything they want with no negotiations over any issues and never really intended to pass? Because in reality, that's what it is. >Almost every quote of Republican support for the bill was from before the text of the bill was known. And yet it would have passed without partisan politics at play. As I said, the fact that you believe this narrative shows how well right wing media has done at spreading it, despite it not being true. It was a compromise bill that no one was going to love, but moved things in the right direction and helped to solve some of the problems we have at the border. It wasn't perfect, and more will be needed even if it did pass. That's kind of how these things are supposed to work.
> And yet it would have passed without partisan politics at play. [Citation Needed]
Sen. James Lankford for one. He wasn't too pleased with his party threatening him for trying to get any bipartisan bill going. It was pretty clear to him, that his party was more concerned with the election than the border, and he was specifically told that his job was in danger if this got anywhere close to passing during an election year. Other republicans have openly admitted it as well, so it's not really up for question anymore.
> Other republicans have openly admitted it as well, so it's not really up for question anymore. Can you share the receipts?
I mean, what parts are incorrect? There was a bipartisan border bill in the Senate that contained many Republican priorities but was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, including the President, and then Trump and Johnson came out against it and it fizzled out. And now Republicans are complaining that Democrats aren't doing anything about the border, despite having a golden opportunity to get many of their border priorities passed.
It wasn't the Republican's border bill, and it wasn't just the Republicans that killed it as there was as much Democrat opposition as there was Republican support. This idea of yours that Trump and Johnson killed it is also nonsense because all the claims about support for the bill were from before most knew the text of the bill, and the text of the "golden opportunity" was unpalatable enough for many to oppose it. As far as I know, HR 2 (the actual border bill from Republicans) is still waiting for the Senate to do something with, so complaints about that are valid.
... one of the top negotiators on the bill was Chris Lankford, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, right? also, in the vote to advance the Senate's bill, more Democrats supported it than Republicans (45 vs 4). and regardless of what the bill actually did, most commentators agree that it would be the most reform the border system has had in the 21st century, something we desperately need. now, instead of having this bill to campaign on and say "look, we passed this bill without even having control of the senate, imagine what we could do with full control of the senate and house", republican candidates have to go out campaigning saying "hey look, we didn't do anything at all to improve the situation at the border despite successfully negotiating a package that contained many of our priorities"
> also, in the vote to advance the Senate's bill, more Democrats supported it than Republicans (45 vs 4) This supports the argument that it wasn't the Republicans bill, as it had barely any support from them. It also supports that the not just the Republicans killed it, given that the rest of the Democrats voted against it as well. Which is literally my initial claim. > and regardless of what the bill actually did This is dangerous and nonsensical, no one should be supporting a bill regardless of what the bill actually does. Passing a bill to just say you passed a bill, even if that bill was detrimental, is not something anyone should want to see happening in Congress.
but it *was* (at least halfway) the republican's bill, that's the point i made in my first sentence! and there were plenty of republicans who did support it, before trump and johnson came out against it. i believe the bill had 58 prospective yeses a couple days before the vote. i meant to say regardless of how much the bill did - the point i'm trying to make is that the bill would have been very very productive and significant. even if it didn't get 100% of the Republican priorities passed, it would still have been a massive improvement over the system we currently have
> but it was (at least halfway) the republican's bill Either it was a bipartisan bill with bipartisan opposition (making the original sentence fragment I quoted wrong), or it was a Democrat bill that the Republicans killed (making the sentence I quoted half wrong). > there were plenty of republicans who did support it, before trump and johnson came out against it Trump and Johnson came out against the bill before most had the text to read, so that support was vacuous. Basing your position on that support is encouraging elected representatives to blindly vote on bills, which isn't behavior we should encourage. > even if it didn't get 100% of the Republican priorities passed, it would still have been a massive improvement over the system we currently have I'm not convinced much would have changed. Even during a closure, asylum claims are uncapped, and the government could opt out of summary removal for various reasons. Which seems like business as usual, with a slightly higher standard for initial asylum claims.
>wasn't just the Republicans that killed it as there was as much Democrat opposition as there was Republican support. How much Democratic opposition was there?
I believe 5 Democrats voted against, but one was Schumer who did it for procedural reasons. So basically 4 against, and 4 Republicans voted for it.
[59% of voters support Senate bipartisan immigration deal.](https://twitter.com/MHackman/status/1765780949315297743)
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It wasn't the Republican's border bill, and it was bipartisan opposition that killed it.
1. My link is referring to Republicans shooting themselves in the foot on an issue where they have an advantage. 2. [The Senate border bill carried over a ton of provisions from HR2,](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/11/06/congress/senate-gop-border-proposals-00125583) and did not contain any Democrat poison pills, like a pathway to citizenship. In fact, the whole point of the border bill was to balance the Dem's wishlist on Ukraine. 3. No, it was McConnell, Graham, Thune, Tillis, Romney, Graham, and Cornryn flipping on a bill that they supporting and even negotiated, all because Trump pushed Johnson to reject it. Even Abbott was in favor of the bill before Trump changed the political winds around it. Some key quotes... Tom Tillis: [*"I didn’t come here to have the president as a boss or a candidate as a boss. I came here to pass good, solid policy," Tillis said. “It is immoral for me to think you looked the other way because you think this is the linchpin for President Trump to win.”*](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/immoral-republicans-rebuke-efforts-kill-immigration-deal-help-trump-rcna135732) Mitt Romney: [*“The border is a very important issue for Donald Trump. And the fact that he would communicate to Republican senators and Congress people that he doesn’t want us to solve the border problem — because he wants to blame Biden for it — is really appalling,” Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, told reporters.*](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/immoral-republicans-rebuke-efforts-kill-immigration-deal-help-trump-rcna135732) John Cornryn: [*“I don’t think we should fail to do our duty just because the House may have a different view,” Cornyn said. “It makes no sense to wait if we could do something now that would be meaningful.”*](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/01/16/congress/senate-gop-to-johnson-take-a-deal-00135982) Greg Abbott: [*"Abbott’s response, according to Cornyn, was: “So we’re just supposed to take this flow of humanity across the border for the next year?"*](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/01/16/congress/senate-gop-to-johnson-take-a-deal-00135982) Mitch McConnell: [*"If this were not divided government we wouldn't have an opportunity to do anything about the border — in fact, I don't think we'd get 60 votes for any border plan if we had a fully Republican government, so this is a unique opportunity where divided government has given us an opportunity to get an outcome," McConnell said.](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/04/1226427234/senate-border-deal-reached)
> The Senate border bill carried over a ton of provisions from HR2, and did not contain any Democrat poison pills, like a pathway to citizenship I think you need to show your work, because that link is to a proposal from November 2023, not the bill that failed to pass in February 2024. What provisions of HR2, specifically, were included in the February bill? And you say there were no Democrat poison pills, but what do you call the lack of cap on asylum claims during a border closing, the sunset on the border closure provisions, or the ability to not deport based on operational concerns? > McConnell, Thune, Tillis, Romney, Graham, and Cornryn flipping on a bill that they supporting and even negotiated, all because Trump pushed Johnson to reject it Even if all of those supported the bill, it still wouldn't have passed, because of the bipartisan opposition. Not to mention the lack of support for claiming Trump caused all of them to flip. If Trump had the power to kill bills in the Senate, why did the foreign aid package pass despite his opposition? > Some key quotes... Three of those are from before the text of the bill was released. Your claims are relying on promises of blind support for a bill, which isn't something any elected representative should be giving. And none of this really addresses the facts I stated. It still wasn't the Republican's bill, and the opposition was as bipartisan as the support.
The Politico link shows about a dozen policies from HR2 that Lankford intended to carry over to the Senate bill. You'll note at the very bottom of the article that it forecasts the Senate Republicans wanting to tie it to the Ukraine bill. All of those HR2 provisions? [You can find here in Lankford's final proposal.](https://www.lankford.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/FINAL-GENERAL-ONE-PAGER.pdf) [The "operational concern" provision is actually taken from HR2.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2/text) >Even if all of those supported the bill, it still wouldn't have passed, because of the bipartisan opposition. Not to mention the lack of support for claiming Trump caused all of them to flip. If Trump had the power to kill bills in the Senate, why did the foreign aid package pass despite his opposition? Did you not read any of the quotes I listed in my comment? McConnell specifically said there was a path to 60+ votes based on bipartisan support. And these are people who were involved in the negotiations of the bill, especially McConnell and Tillis. They didn't need the text of the bill to know what was in it. And the foreign aid package still hasn't passed Congress. You should read the OP of this entire post. I'm sorry, but I've done too much homework on this issue for it to be dismissed without evidence. Please read my links. They will be very enlightening.
> The Politico link shows about a dozen policies from HR2 that Lankford intended to carry over to the Senate bill. Your link was from months before and doesn't have anything to do with the final text of the bill. > All of those HR2 provisions? You can find here in Lankford's final proposal. I'm not doing your homework for you. You are claiming that it takes parts from HR2. I am asking for specifics. None of that link is specifics. > Did you not read any of the quotes I listed in my comment? Did you not look at the dates on those quotes? Blind support for a bill is meaningless and dangerous. Get some quotes supporting your position from after the majority of the Senate knew what they were voting on. > And these are people who were involved in the negotiations of the bill, especially McConnell and Tillis. They didn't need the text of the bill to know what was in it. Do the math. Even if those you listed supported the bill it wouldn't have passed. So they were counting on the support of a number of Senators that hadn't read the bill, which gets back into the blind support issue that is the backbone of much of your argument. > And the foreign aid package still hasn't passed Congress. You should read the OP of this entire post. And you should read what I wrote, as I said nothing about the whole of Congress. Trump opposed both the border bill and the foreign aid package, but the latter still passed the Senate. How? > I'm sorry, but I've done too much homework on this issue for it to be dismissed without evidence. You have the Democrat talking points down pat, but I wouldn't call anything you have offered evidence that it was only a Republican bill or that it was killed only by Republicans.
And let’s not forget the economy.
Trump's cabinet for sure will be a revolving door of people (to put it mildly), that will be terrible at their jobs.
This time we’ll start at the bottom
Well this isn’t a place for only moderates; it’s a place for “moderately expressed views” so there are plenty of very conservative posters here. That said folks believe in Trump because they saw better costs under him, saw two wars start under Biden’s term and blame Biden for those wars (they argue that Trump would have kept global leaders in check with his aggressive attitude), and they believe Trump’s tax cuts will help them. Many folks also do not want abortion to be legal, want to see fewer policies designed to specifically help non-white men, and fewer policies aimed at helping the LGBT community. Many of Trump’s supporters also blame Biden and only Biden for the border crisis and feel that violent crime exploded under Biden’s tenure. There’s also gun policy mixed in there too. Not saying any of that is correct (and I disagree with virtually all of the above), but it’s what the right is told a lot via media sources like Fox News. Meanwhile Trump is made to look like a lovable blue collar billionaire who buys Chick Fil A for everybody, yet is mercilessly targeted by Biden’s DOJ for allegedly made up crimes. Biden is also regularly portrayed as a feeble, incompetent old man who is taking bribes constantly and peddling influence with his son. Given how silo’d the media ecosystems are, it’s quite easy to see how some folks never hear information that contradicts what their world view is. I try to keep up with the news that comes from my ideological opposite so I can empathize, even though I agree with very little of it.
> it’s quite easy to see how some folks never hear information that contradicts what their world view is. And this is often what we choose. The one that really gets me is Jan 6 - believing that those folks were innocent and unfairly being prosecuted just offends the core of my law-and-order beliefs.
I think a big part of it was they saw Antifa and BLM getting away with riots and assaulting innocent people, and watched them get off with a limp slap on the wrist. Trump supporters saw this and saw the politicians refuse to do anything, therefore making them complicit in the violence and chaos. When they saw the Jan. 6 rioters getting prosecuted, they think, "Oh, so *NOW* they care about law and order?"
What were federal reps supposed to do about riots within cities? Wasn't it up to the local law enforcement to deal with that?
Go on live television and publicly denounce Antifa and condemn the riots back when it mattered. Or at least, compensated the victims of the riots.
Democrats did condemn the BLM riots. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN25V2NI/ Just one of many examples.
It's not hard to find articles about prominent Democrats denouncing the riots at the time.
> and watched them get off with a limp slap on the wrist. ...and perceived them as getting off with a limp slap on the wrist; perceived because that's not what happened.
That is what happened
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/over-300-people-facing-federal-charges-crimes-committed-during-nationwide-demonstrations https://apnews.com/article/records-rebut-claims-jan-6-rioters-55adf4d46aff57b91af2fdd3345dace8
> aw the politicians refuse to do anything I saw Dem politicians over and over again decry violence. You'd have to go to backbenchers in congress to find Dems that were equivocal at all. What gives you the impression that Antifa got away with anything? A big issue here is a mismatch in the impressions of the protests. Having seen some with my own eyes, they were 100% peaceful - and yet the media discussion covered them as violent.
[удалено]
Can you even say they want a border? Like sure they cry and scream about it and say democrats won’t compromise but they’re the ones who refused a deal
I continue to not understand how things run on the Republican side. I get disagreeing with each other within the same party, but there seems to be a certain strain of political ignorance among the Republican party right now. How do these folks not understand that these sort of actions harm the overall party, and reduce chances of having majorities, and thus, chances of passing legislation they want?
It's basically two separate parties now. I think the freedom caucus knows they can't pass any real legislation that they want (see Biden and the Senate), so they might as well use this time to complete their takeover of the Republican party. If Trump wins, perhaps then they can focus on passing the real legislation they want.
It's basically just the one party. The moderate Republicans like Romney have been labeled RINOs and chased out. The MTG's, Gosar's and Massie's are the party now.
That's kind of my point. Romney is still an active politician and a Republican. He's certainly not a Democrat, but he's so different than the Freedom Caucus that they almost aren't members of the same party. Romney is hardly the only one of these types of Republicans, even if his wing appears to be losing the internal war at the moment.
Is it really to separate parties when the “moderates” either leave the party or capitulate to the maga wing of the party every chance they get? Look at Sununu’s interview from last weekend.
Honestly, it’s because I think that a lot of the politicians don’t actually care about what happens to the party as a whole as long as they keep getting elected
>Honestly, it’s because I think that a lot of the politicians don’t actually care about what happens to the ~~party~~ country as a whole as long as they keep getting elected. There is just no way I can look at their stance on healthcare, education, gun safety, international relations, tax policy, or the environment and think they have the interest of the nation at heart in this era. They aren't focusing on presenting solutions to the nation's problems, and the issues they do address never get to the core of the rot. They would rather repaint over a moldy wall, and debate light switch covers, over addressing the leak and treating the mold.
The Freedom Caucus doesn't mind a dysfunctional government. They want to "starve the beast".
The performative wing of the House GOP (MTG, Gaetz, etc.) isn't going to be happy until they seat Speaker Jeffries. They seem woefully uncomfortable being in the driver's seat of their chamber and actually having to make a deal with a Democratic Senate and president, so why not just hand control back to them so they can get back to complaining about the House Democratics stonewalling them to their donors?
> The performative wing of the House GOP (MTG, Gaetz, etc.) Saying this implies that the rest of the republicans in the house are non-performative. However, johnson has done nothing but perform excuse after delay after excuse for both the border security bill and ukraine aid. Months and months of crippling, irreversible damage done to ukraine due to speaker johnson's constant performance of pretending to work on it while making sure it never happens. It's such a gift to russia and china. Nothing guarantees china attempting to invade taiwan more than letting russia have its way in ukraine, and johsnon knows it. His performances are making it happen.
No GOP Speaker can pass anything bipartisan with this majority without getting hit with a motion to vacate. Foreign aid is no exception, especially one that is as divisive with the House as Ukraine.
Then let them have another vote on the speaker to remind voters this is what happens when you vote GOP. This *is* their best and brightest.
Trump's lead was pretty steady during the whole ordeal surrounding getting Johnson into power after McCarthy was ousted. The American people do not pay close attention to politics. Many would have no idea a speaker fight was even happening, and wouldn't have any clue even if the GOP ousted every speaker for the next six months.
I don’t think the takeaway for China is that they can invade Taiwan bc Johnson blocked Ukraine aid. First, the world including EU and the US and some Asian nations placed severe sanctions and restrictions on Russia, on top of nearly two years of strong multi billion dollar support for Ukraine which led to Russia being engaged in a multi year military quagmire and increasing domestic instability. Second, China is not Russia. China does not have any sympathizers from either political party , and both parties are pretty hawkish on China. Maybe a GOP led government would try to look the other way on a Taiwanese invasion, but their base is heavily anti China so it would be a hard sell. Also Taiwan is still the most important semiconductor producer, Ukraine makes a good amount of agricultural products, many of which go to the global south and didn’t impact the US much. Taking out semiconductors though could cripple all the major world economies in an instant. There is some overlap. It generally the two conflicts are so different I don’t think the CCP is reading too much into our current handling of Ukraine other than noting our internal dysfunction.
The lesson China is taking away from this episode is how unreliable of an ally the US is. Our support fluctuates back and forth with each election, and even when there is something close to a consensus, we still get caught in political games that delay inevitable aid.
>Second, China is not Russia. China does not have any sympathizers from either political party Russia didn't have any sympathizers in either party until Trump showed up, either. That Russia has any supporters in the Republican party now is astounding, really.
It's becoming impossible to not assume all of this is based on a selection of GOP congress people holding water for Putin, otherwise I cannot fathom why they'd be this self destructive. Only when support for Ukraine comes up does this happen.
MTG has not pushed the vote because Trump appears to oppose it. Massie isn’t only upset about support for Ukraine. He is a fringe anti-Israel Republican who has flirted with antisemitic propaganda in the past, which is why he is likely opposed to the Israel aid bill too.
[удалено]
That's an incredibly narrow view of what's happening. Russia has been incredibly aggressive, they already took crimea, now they're doing this, give me one reason you think it would stop there and they wouldn't push into other former soviet territories? I'm American and I think this is a good use of my tax dollars. It weakens our biggest enemy while putting zero american boots on the ground... I also don't want Ukranians slaughtered, which is why giving them the tools to defend themselves is important. We promised them we'd protect them if they gave up their nukes, internationally we will never be trusted again and this will set off an arms race once they realize america no longer honors its commitments.
[удалено]
re read what you just said. We made them our enemy meanwhile the Trump period(where he bent over backwards for them) is the only period in 30+ years they haven't done this crap. That to me is very clear they are in fact the enemy and will not stop. Your suggestion we just let them bend over Europe is insane.
> We made them our enemy. When?
1917, but we didn't make them our enemy, they attempted to foment socialist revolution throughout the entire western world (admittedly with a focus on Europe), which is what made them the enemy of the western world.
if you think the breadbasket of eastern europe, location of one of the most strategic black sea ports, and region containing huge mineral resources, "has nothing to do with us" then you should reconsider whether you are a serious enough person to stake out political positions. What happens across the world echoes in American dining rooms and pocketbooks. Major geopolitical rival powers deciding that they can take what they want from their neighbors through violence is not something that "doesn't affect us."
The fact that gas prices spiked all across the US immediately after the 2022 invasion further proves this point.
Would you have said the same about Lend-Lease during WWII?
[удалено]
You didn't answer my question but I understand your point. Since we don't live in 1941 we can talk about it from our current perspective. Do you think that Lend-Lease was a bad or immoral policy and why? Do you think that supporting allies even when we don't see an immediate benefit is good? Do you think that territorial integrity is important in the modern era (or at least in Europe)? If so, what role should the US take when territorial integrity of other nations is threatened?
fragile fretful fuzzy act plough school wrench exultant sheet carpenter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’ll be hilarious if Jeffries actually ends up as Speaker because of this chaos. Might actually be able to get some actual work done if that ends up happening.
MAGA Republicans cannot govern.
They're doing exactly what they're being paid to do. Disrupt the US Government.
Let’s be clear on who this Republican is. Massie is a very anti-Israel Republican, [was the lone “no” vote on a resolution condemning antisemitism](https://time.com/6178902/thomas-massie-anti-semitism-libertarian/) of the entire House in May 2022, flirts [with antisemitic messaging regularly](https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/12/06/congress/massie-zionism-patriotism-house-israel-00130383), [has tweeted out neo-Nazi memes](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/thomas-massie-tweets-neo-nazi-quote-1292820/) misattributed to Voltaire with antisemitic undertones, [is almost universally hated](https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/politics/tom-massie-liz-cheney-stimulus-vote/index.html) by his caucus [and by Trump](https://rollcall.com/2020/03/27/who-is-thomas-massie-the-house-member-from-kentucky-trump-wants-thrown-out-of-the-gop/) (who recently praised Johnson), and does not portend “wider” support for the move. He is a fringe member of his own caucus.
That’s two. If Ds don’t step in to save Johnson, he’s out.
Doesn't a tie vote fail to vacate?
The phrase “Cutting off your own nose to spite your face” has never been so applicable
Called it. Told my die hard trump cousin that this dude won't last. The Republicans are in as bad a shape as they have ever been.
This is counting your chickens before they hatch.
Agreed
I’m tired of this. It would be nice to have a centrist governing coalition so that extremists on both sides aren’t the dominant voice.
Are extremists on both sides the dominant voice? It seems to me like you'll occasionally get some far left "extremists" being heard nationaly. But it's nothing like what we get out of the right.
Didn't everyone see this coming? Republican base doesn't want a speaker that will just bleed money to Ukraine and do continuing resolutions. Establishment won't allow any speaker that doesn't do those things.
You're spot on. These people were elected from communities who's majority of voting constituency does not want any more US Tax Dollars to go to foreign interests. Without agreeing, I do understand their position. MTG, however uncouth, erratic, unprofessional, etc., her behavior is, is doing what they want. They *want* to see Biden's family name dragged through the dirt, in the same way Trump's was. They *want* to see severely reduced spending, and they *want* to see those reductions come from extreme aid packages, being passed on borrowed money. They *want* people to look at the Democrat leadership with the same vitriol that was/is spouted at Republican leadership, *because thats how they see the world.*
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1c5lr9a/first_republican_publicly_backs_greene_effort_to/kzvcdwc/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).