this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024

222 points (98.3% liked)

News

23375 readers

2755 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

222

Republicans’ House majority is their smallest in decades, and shrinking (www.washingtonpost.com)

submitted 8 months ago by GlitzyArmrest to c/news

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Republicans are entering a months-long stretch of legislating with their smallest House majority in decades. And the margin is about to tighten even more.

Departures from the House have whittled down the Republican caucus from 222 to 219, meaning the party can only afford to lose two members and still pass legislation when everyone is attending and voting.

Another Republican, Rep. Ken Buck (Colo.), announced Tuesday that he would vacate his seat at the end of next week.

Meanwhile, Congress is staring down a deadline next Friday to fund about 70 percent of the government — including the Defense, State and Homeland Security departments. It could further complicate a stalled border security bill and aid package for Ukraine and Israel.

Democrats are likely to add another lawmaker to their ranks after a special election in a deep-blue, Buffalo-area district in late April. The next special election in a red district isn’t until May 21.

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] ceenote 78 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

"Speaker Johnson! How do you legislate with such a slim majority?"

"That's the neat part: you don't."

[–] [email protected] 35 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"We legislate with obstruction, same as every year that we don't hold both houses and the Presidency."

[–] makyo 13 points 8 months ago

Let's be real, also when they hold both houses

[–] LEDZeppelin 33 points 8 months ago

Repubes have given up on legislating a long time ago. Now it’s all about theatrics and shit flinging

[–] [email protected] 20 points 8 months ago

I believe we ought to take a leaf from the Arch-Conservative's book to address the big issue

"No actually, we don't have to negotiate a new budget with you to keep the government funded and running, that would be stupid and a compromise of national security."

[+] Mammal -22 points 8 months ago (3 children)

And they still get most everything they want; whereas when Dems are in charge they have to make up obscure reasons (example: Oh Noe!!! The Parlimentarian won't let us do it!!!111) why they can't pass popular legislation.

[–] Volkditty 37 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's easier when "everything they want" is just to shit the bed and blame others for it.

And even though Dems are the minority, they're still the ones doing all the work to keep the lights on.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

It’s easier when “everything they want” is just to shit the bed and blame others for it.

ah yes, the "Amber Heard" platform

[–] [email protected] 37 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Did you read the article? There's a chart that shows that Democrats have only controlled the House for 8 of the past 24 years. And half of that time they didn't control the presidency. 2009 - 11 and 21 - 23 were the only times when they had both (4 years).

Now add the Senate in there and the time window shrinks even more. It's hard to do anything when people don't fucking vote.

Fucking vote. I don't care what your excuse is. Vote.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Democrats have had a trifecta capable of passing any legislation for like 5 of the last 40 years IIRC, and for most of those it was the Bill Clinton Era Dems who think pulling back a bloody stump isn't any reason to stop reaching across the aisle ever.

The past trifecta was the first time since Johnson where we had even a modicum of progressive ambition in a position to make some change, and out of it we got the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act, and the reason we didn't get more is because of two senators who aren't coming back anymore, and the archaic accidental rule they were defending with exactly zero actually good reason.

Like seriously, the white left will try to deride "just keep voting" as if 1) voting is some Herculean labor they should be patted on the back for instead of the bare minimum to be called an ally instead of an ally aesthetic chaser, and 2) voting isn't something that has to be done regularly to keep momentum behind any gains made.

[–] Omegamanthethird 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Basically, liberals have not controlled all 3 in a very long time.

Paraphrasing Manchin, if you want a progressive, vote for a progressive.

The only way we're going to make any progress is by voting more (liberal) Democrats in.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

And also by running as more progressive and leftist Democrats, AOC lit the way for us, if the few oldies who are with us can't make it, then we should go and do it ourselves.

[–] gAlienLifeform 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, that one was incredibly frustrating since the parliamentarian is just an advisory position with no binding authority. They literally could've done the "oh no, anyway" routine and gotten good legislation passed but they decided optics were more important.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

But she was the first female parliamentarian. They couldn't possibly do that, or replace her. She was doing such an important job: the job of being the first female parliamentarian. Think of all the little girls who, every day, look up to her as the first female parliamentarian, and then to see her not listened to by Chuck Schumer. What will all of those little girls think?

/s because that's apparently necessary to spell out