politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
One more Democrat wants to expel him, he's done for!
Republicans are in the majority, so unless a few people with R next to their name actually want to expel him, it means nothing.
Thirty democrats voted to not expel him last vote, he could have been gone already. Raskin said he was waiting for a conviction, if republicans want him gone sooner they need to do it themselves.
He's as powerless as a House member can be, so maybe they want to keep him around to make the GOP look foolish?
That's what most people assume, but personally Im unsure if it helps much. A functional government would expel someone like Santos for what he did, not hold his seat in limbo to make the other party look bad. Sure it's quite literally almost nothing compared to the dysfunction of the other guys, but I'm not convinced that adding to legislative dysfunction will help fix other legislative dysfunction with no unintentional consequences.
It's funny because I'm actually really glad the Dems are willing to not simply play by the rules and only within decorum, but to me I'm unsure how effective this particular gambit is going to be. Santos already put plenty of egg on the GOPs face and no one expects another term from him, his time was always limited, so this move needs dividends beyond just what Santos already brought upon his self and party.
Comparing the next election results of repubs who voted to expel against those that didn't is gonna be the sure fire way to measure this. Maybe I'm just nervous since the strategy inherently adds risk that we likely will only fully understand the extent or lack of extent of after an election.
The number of people who are just willing to walk right past all the Republicans causing the problems to then blame the Democrats for not saving these idiots is wild.
Not a single Republican that voted to keep Santos is withing reach of my vote. Not only are none of them from my state but I never vote Republican, so my vote was never theirs to gain or lose. The Democrats however do have candidates who voted to keep Santos that I get to vote for or against.
Beyond that point, the fact that Republicans did something selfish and stupid doesn't mean democrats are blamless in amplifying it. Im worried this may not be super great come election time since most Republicans will be able to go back to their state and tell everyone they tried to kick santos out but the democrats helped block it. There needs to be sweeping losses among the republicans who voted to keep him.
And beyond that point, as a voter of the democrats you're actually allowed to question and be critical of their strategy, you don't have to settle for diverting all blame to Republicans. You're allowed to ask for better.
Hey, you vote how you want. Just saying that if you're thinking about not voting for a Democrat who wouldn't rescue republicans from themselves, well, you'll end up with representation that better suits you, I guess.