this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
289 points (97.7% liked)

politics

20419 readers
5417 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
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ghostalmedia 187 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

On Monday he criticized the legislation, which would provide an additional $60 billion of military aid for Ukraine, claiming it is "silent on the most pressing issue facing our country" in reference to illegal immigration.

This cynical motherfucker. Says you can’t fund Ukraine until we work on the border. Dems agree. Dems drafts a bipartisan bill that puts hard caps on the border and shuts it down when capacity is reached.

Then this guy tanks the border bill because Trumps wants border chaos so he can run on fixing it. Then he says Congress needs to address the border, after he just tanked a border bill that Congress could’ve easily passed.

Corrupt and selfish people like him are why US government is broken.

[–] FenrirIII 65 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And the idiots who vote for these people

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

Fox. News. Cultists.

[–] dhork 54 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Posting on X, in response to comments from Johnson, who he branded an "idiot," Kinzinger said: "Time for a discharge petition, or for three republicans to vote against every rule until he agrees. You will not win unless you fight fire with fire."

That second option is probably a better path. If you recall, the Freedom Caucus pulled that shit on Kevin for a week or so, grinding the House to a halt, until he gave in to whatever tantrum they had at the time.

The House can't do anything until a majority agrees on the rule first. The minority party typically votes against that, just to keep things interesting. So all we would need to do is find three or four Republicans willing to hold their own tantrum about the bill, and then nothing can get done until they get a majority back again.

This usually doesn't happen, but then again the majority party doesn't usually have a margin this small.

[–] SinningStromgald 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Or just investigate where the fuck all of Mikeys money is and hold him accountable for not reporting it like he should for years? Fucking Christofascist piece of petrified dog shit.

Or add the entire border bill as an amendment to the current bill or something.

[–] Rapidcreek 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Jeffries: There are more than 300 bipartisan votes in the House to pass the National Security bill today. It’s not too much to ask that we get a vote and actually let the House work its will as opposed to allowing Trump to work his will and block our National Security priorities

[–] Atom 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can't tell if you're summarizing here, but that's exactly what he's doing. The speaker and majority leader decide what bills are allowed to be brought to the floor for a vote. The only way around that is a discharge petition. Jefferies can't bring the bill to a vote himself. From the article:

"The legislation could also be brought to the floor via a discharge petition, which would require the support of 218 members, including at least four Republicans."

The question is, will 4 Republicans break with Trump to support it?

[–] Rapidcreek 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a Jeffries quote from a recent press conference..,

[–] Atom 8 points 1 year ago

Oh, gotcha. There are a lot of pie in the sky "they should just do it" users on here, I can never tell.

[–] SkyezOpen 4 points 1 year ago

will 4 Republicans break with Trump to support it?

There's enough on record shit-talking their colleagues for being obstructionists, at least a few are probably being genuine.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago

Let's fucking go.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

How this creepy worm got so much power is beyond me.

[–] BustinJiber 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mike Johnson discharge would be called johnsonrhea.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

...a reference to both Mike Johnson and Mike's Johnson.

[–] Candelestine 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Has he already assigned it to committee? A discharge petition is used to extract a bill from being stuck in committee. One of the Speaker's duties, however, is to assign bills to committees in the first place. The easiest way for him to block the bill is to simply never do this. It enters the House, and then it just sits there, going nowhere, forever. Unable to move to step 1.

Mike Johnson would then be what needs to be discharged.

[–] macarthur_park 15 points 1 year ago

Since the bill originated in the senate, this doesn’t appear to be a limitation.

[–] PeterPoopshit 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The only thing making this guy less scary than Trump is the fact he's not running for president... For now.

[–] Wrench 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He's no where near as scary. He's a spineless MAGA yes man, who afaik has only drawn the line at literally letting the US currency tank due to defaulting on the national debt. And presumably, only because he doesn't have a reliable foreign golden parachute to replace his current amassed wealth.

He's only dangerous because he followed orders from dangerous people. Trump is way worse.

[–] PeterPoopshit 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Mike Johnson's political stances:

A nationwide abortion ban.

A nationwide ban on gay marriage.

Heavy restrictions on medical marijuana prescriptions and a ban on recreational marijuana.

Ending military aid to Ukraine.

Gay conversion therapy.

Federal law against gender affirming care for those under 18.

Eliminating funding for immigration and refugee assistance.

A federal version of Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Prayer in public schools.

Laws making divorce more difficult.

Johnson does not believe in climate change or that Biden legitimately won the 2020 election. He is a young earth creationist believing the Earth was created between 6-10k years ago. He basically checks every box of a christofascist.

This guy deserves a lot more hate than he is currently getting. Yes, Trump is evil but that doesn't mean Mike Johnson gets a free pass. When the Trump bubble bursts, he will become the new furher so get ready.

[–] Got_Bent 3 points 1 year ago

For a party that says it's all about liberty, that's sure a long list of things a person can't do.

[–] Wrench 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, you could be right. But the guy was a distant afterthought for house speaker. His only draw was that he was obedient to the orange one, in order to get the MAGA caucus, and the other Republicans were just desperate for anyone.

This is more of a marginally useful idiot, not the next face of the republican party. As much as I don't understand Trumps apparent charisma, it's apparent he had some. I don't see any reception at all to Johnson besides "he is doing what we want"

[–] Rapidcreek 3 points 1 year ago

On the other hand, he could well lose his job.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


On Tuesday the bill passed the Senate in a 70-29 vote, but it must also be approved by the House before President Joe Biden can sign it into law.

On Monday he criticized the legislation, which would provide an additional $60 billion of military aid for Ukraine, claiming it is "silent on the most pressing issue facing our country" in reference to illegal immigration.

Posting on X, formerly Twitter, Democratic Rep. Ami Bera wrote: "If Speaker Johnson won't bring this critical aid package to the floor, I stand ready to sign a discharge petition to get the job done.

Speaking to CNN on Monday former Speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, said: "Our leader, Hakeem Jeffries, said he has not ruled out using a discharge petition, which is a parliamentary maneuver to try and bring a bill to the floor."

A number of pro-Ukraine conservatives have also suggested a discharge petition could be introduced, including Adam Kinzinger, a former Republican House representative and fierce Trump critic.

Posting on X, in response to comments from Johnson, who he branded an "idiot," Kinzinger said: "Time for a discharge petition, or for three republicans to vote against every rule until he agrees.


The original article contains 539 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mushroom dicked people worldwide must be ecstatic knowing there are in fact people who will gleefully fellate their weirdly shaped johnson for nothing but headpats and cheeto dust.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Epstein didn't thrill himself

[–] Cyberflunk -5 points 1 year ago

Mikey needs a polonium injection