210
Republicans Flock to Trump’s Trial, Risking Control of the House Floor
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
210 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3806 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.
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They know the Democrats don't have the balls to try and sneak legislative actions by when they're not there. They're too focused on decorum and wanting a strong Republican party to undermine the Republicans.
"Sneak" is a loaded term. I think what you mean is "do their job like they're supposed to and vote like they usually would." It's not like they're holding a secret/special session under the Republicans noses. They're just at work when they're supposed to be and others aren't. The alternative to "sneaking" legislative action in this case is just not doing their jobs for the day because a bunch of people decided not to show up. 12 people don't show up, so they send the other 400+ home for the day? Is that the moral expectation?
Good call. I fell for the trap I was upset about, it's literally just their job, but they won't do it the same way they didn't want to confirm judges near the end of Barrys second term.
This was not about being scared and more of a social contract
They would not select judges on the end of a presidents turn, based on the trust that the other party wouldn't either
As soon as one party stops holding to this unwritten agreement (as Republicans did under Trump), there is little to no incentive for the other party to continue abiding to it
Im sorry but "I made a tacit verbal agreement about choices that deeply shape the law of the entire country with an untrustworthy group of people who went on to break it when everyone was warning they would break it" isn't better. In fact that changes the narrative from 'Dems being too stuck to principles to make the right choice' to 'Dems are simply not intelligent enough to make the right choice', and either way they got played.