this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2025
551 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19293 readers
2065 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

The House GOP's new rules package aims to weaken minority party influence while advancing a pro-corporate agenda.

Key provisions include shielding the House speaker from bipartisan accountability and fast-tracking 12 GOP bills without allowing amendments, including measures to sanction the International Criminal Court (ICC) and protect fracking.

Democrats, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), criticized the package for ignoring economic and social issues like inflation and housing while prioritizing tax cuts for billionaires.

Republicans plan to offset these costs by slashing social programs, sparking warnings of further congressional dysfunction.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nightwingdragon 18 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It’s not exactly rational but it is understandable that people in a bad spot aren’t particularly concerned about things getting worse because from their perspective things are already pretty bad.

Here's the part where I have to strongly disagree with the rationale.

I get it. You've (proverbially speaking) been in a hole for 4 years, and all you're being offered is a rickety old ladder that looks like it'll fall apart as soon as you go up a couple of steps. I can understand why the guy saying he might drop a nice shiny new ladder might look more appealing. But that's not what's going on here.

The guy saying he might offer you a shiny new ladder is also the same guy who was responsible for throwing you into this hole 4 years ago in the first place. And in fact, he's not even holding a ladder this time. He's promising to throw you a shovel and telling you to dig deeper.

That's why I disagree. It would be one thing if Trump were throwing around the usual empty GOP promises. But Trump, Vance, and Musk have all come out and repeatedly said they were going to impose hardships on the poor, they were going to impose tariffs on virtually everything, and acknowledged that prices would likely continue to go up, not down.

I understand wanting someone offering a better ladder if you're in a hole. But my god, the last thing you do is vote for the guy with the shovel.

[–] JcbAzPx 5 points 3 days ago

A rickety ladder would have been fine. What we were offered was a choice between a shovel and dynamite.

[–] kreskin -2 points 3 days ago

I get it.

You absolutely do not get it.