231

House Speaker Johnson axes Trump voting restrictions in new government funding bill (www.cnbc.com)

submitted 11 hours ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson announced a new temporary government funding proposal with key amendments from the original bill he put forward earlier this month.
The new proposal goes against Donald Trump's wishes and makes some concessions to Democrats.
The new bill would fund the government through Dec. 20 and does not include any part of the SAVE Act, the Trump-backed election security proposal that would require people to show proof of citizenship to register as a voter.
The previous version of Johnson's bill, which Trump preferred, was attached to the SAVE Act and would have funded the government through March 2025.

🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 73 points 10 hours ago

Pretty transparent to have the funding expire just after the election, gives republicans a few weeks to decide if they care about the deficit (Dem elected) or not (republican elected).

[-] cymbal_king@lemmy.world 16 points 9 hours ago

Nah, this was a concession both Democrats and Senate Republicans were asking for. They hope to have a full budget deal finished before a new administration so there's a clean slate for either incoming president

[-] 2piradians@lemmy.world 18 points 8 hours ago

I see the logic in what you're saying.

But I've also seen some worry that if Trump loses (and he damn well better lose), when the CR expires about a month before Harris' inauguration, this possibly leads to government gridlock, thereby emboldening another January 6 attempt.

Personally I expect another J6 whether the government is funded or not, but I'd feel better about things if it was funded.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 hours ago

Honestly I just hope Biden mobilizes some divisions near and around the Capitol, they dont need to be deployed immediately hell that can harass the local McDonald's for all it matters they just need to be ready.

[-] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 7 hours ago

I read a comment a few weeks ago from someone that is from around that area. Between J6 and the inauguration, apparently a bunch of concrete barriers sprung up and there were military personnel stationed throughout checkpoints at the Capitol complex.
Biden is many things, but he and his cronies are not intentionally keeping security weak in hopes that a coup will happen, nor will he or the other two people that can activate them hesitate to deploy the National Guard.

J6 was not a generalized failure of government processes or a mistake from lack of planning. There are standing plans, materiel, and personnel in place. The state of the Capitol and its defenses were a choice — an intentional failure, to open the doors for a coup.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 11 points 7 hours ago

Yep. Someone orange should go to prison for that fucking shit.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 1 points 8 hours ago

If they win with enough margin there won't be gridlock

[-] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 hours ago

Well, you're more optimistic than I am. Hope you're right.

this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024

231 points (99.6% liked)

politics

18909 readers

3578 users here now

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.
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.
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

• 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