this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
281 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19239 readers
1924 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

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

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

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

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 12 points 1 hour ago
[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 14 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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

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

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 9 minutes ago

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

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

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

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

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 170 points 22 hours ago (5 children)

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

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 6 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 6 minutes ago

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

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

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

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

[–] rational_lib@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

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

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

[–] Dwayne_Elizondo_Mountain_Dew_Camacho@sh.itjust.works 27 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 20 points 17 hours ago

Thank you, President Camacho.

[–] zaphodb2002@sh.itjust.works 49 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 15 points 21 hours ago

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

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Yea, darkest would probably be everyone surviving H bombs, but leaving us in nuclear winter.

[–] Pappabosley@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I've already warned my family, if nukes start dropping in our area, I'm running towards the blast - I'm not hanging round to rebuild.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

My whole family feels the same. There's a military base about 20 minutes away. We'd probably be dead anyway because of how close we are, but we're going to drive as close as possible just to make sure.

[–] bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

What a waste. In this scenario your best act is to throw your bodies at the idiots started this mess, not to kill yourself.

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I'd rather die in the blast than slowly doom radiation poisoning and/or cancer.

[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Chance of turning into a ghoul and meeting Danny Trejo in a hundred years or so though.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 29 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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

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

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 4 points 9 hours ago

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

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

Everything is projection with them

[–] codexarcanum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 68 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

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

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

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 4 points 18 hours ago

Trumpiest regime ever. Some say it's not Trumpy enough but they are losers.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 93 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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

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

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

[–] satanmat@lemmy.world 43 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah this is the kind of bs that terrifies me.

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

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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

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

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

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 20 points 23 hours ago

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

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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

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

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 11 points 21 hours ago (5 children)

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

-Sincerely, Outside Dev Team

load more comments (5 replies)

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

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 29 points 22 hours ago

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

Trump would have a full on temper tantrum.

[–] Breve@pawb.social 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 22 hours ago

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

[–] rickdg@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (2 children)

These guise don’t even know how to win.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

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

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

All it takes is one chimpanzee to sling their own shit in the general direction of a complex machine and you risk the shit seeping inside and doing permanent damage. The problem is that it's not just one. Trump has a whole army of chimps with their dicks in one hand and their shit in the other. And all they care about is covering the machine in so much waste that nobody will want to touch it even if it does still appear to work.

[–] rickdg@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

True. Things would need to escalate towards some night of the long knives (in minecraft) of the republican party for either Trump or Elmo to gain absolute power.

[–] dogsnest@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

Dis guise in dis array.

[–] 0p3r470r@lemm.ee 24 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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

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

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] frezik@midwest.social 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (5 children)

If they don't certify on time, it's supposed to go to a contingent election, where the House votes for the President (with 1 vote per State delegation) and the Senate votes for VP. Presumably, the Senate would vote for Vance in short order. But if the House still can't get it's shit together, and there is no contingent election for President, what happens? Would Vance get directly inaugurated as President?

I am convinced that this was the loophole that Trump was talking about to deny the Presidency to Harris if she won the election. It would be poetic justice if the GOP establishment uses it to screw Trump over.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mercphilby 22 points 1 day ago

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

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago
load more comments
view more: next ›