Yeah duh. "Moderate Republicans" have been about as common as unicorns for a long time.
In my household we usually call those "Democrats".
I'd love real political parties, instead.
Or how about instead of multiple political parties with arbitrary distinctions across a central divide having a party that attempts to represent one standard deviation around the norm and uses data to decide its platform?
Essentially support nothing unless 68% of the country supports it in multiple reputable polls.
While it wouldn't yet support universal healthcare (only 5% away from that marker and trending towards it), the party would absolutely be against cuts to Medicare and Social Security.
It would have been supporting preventing people with mental illness from owning guns for years now, and increasing the age to purchase to 21.
Term limits and max age for Congress.
Preventing Congress's stock ownership and trading.
Giving Medicare the ability to negotiate drug prices.
Raising the minimum wage.
Weed legalization (as of last year).
Yet somehow when we break these up into competing parties where all that matters is that the other side doesn't get a chance to win because each side loudly focuses on wedge issues or expanded scope popular to their side and unpopular to the other, we end up with representatives that do jack to further any of the above issues.
I'd really love for a data driven party focused on the central majority. Because even though I'm personally more progressive than that party would represent, the battle becomes shifting public mindset on the topics I care about but in the meantime topics everyone cares about will at least be getting work done to advance.
Let's have a single party that wins every election because it appeals to a significant majority of the country rather than more small parties that represent less and less of the country, and have primaries for that party run with ranked choice voting.
The fact that a fucking Cheney was one of the kind of sort of reasonable by comparison ones, and she was basically chased out, really says it all
And Republicans have been pushing out their own who would have been considered conservative just a decade ago.
theyre called 'democrats' now.. and for some time
"Moderate Republicans," "Good Cops," they're the same thing. If they do exist, they sure as hell are complicit.
They're the most important part of the conspiracy. They give cover to traitors.
Moderate Republicans are no more now. More Boebert/MTG types now.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Trying to keep your party in power after it lost a free and fair election, without a shred of evidence of significant fraud, isn’t just denial; it’s a betrayal of democracy.
For if you read that proposal carefully, getting past the often mealy-mouthed language, you realize that it calls for the evisceration of the U.S. social safety net — not just programs for the poor, but also policies that form the bedrock of financial stability for the American middle class.
As a result, some employers would probably just give their top earners cash, which they could use to buy expensive individual plans, while dropping coverage for the rest of their workers.
Back in 2017 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Donald Trump’s attempt to repeal Obamacare would cause 23 million Americans to lose coverage.
So Mike Johnson is on record advocating policies on retirement, health care and other areas I don’t have space to get into, like food stamps, that would basically end American society as we know it.
Here’s my guess, based on previous experience: Many voters will simply refuse to believe that prominent Republicans, let alone the speaker of the House, are really advocating such terrible things.
The original article contains 916 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
There are no moderate ~~Republicans~~ American Fascists in the House of Representatives.
Yeah, back in 2016.
Anyone have a good paywall bypass for the nytimes?
Normally I'd post the full text of the article so you wouldn't have to worry about it, but they took down three of my posts and I had no way to fix them after they were removed. So I don't do that any more.
We appreciate you trying.
Thanks for doing that in the past. I understand why instances want to try to protect themselves from legal problems. I can usually find a way around the walls, but the NYTimes one has beaten me.
The way I get past it is to disable javascript to a site via uBlock Origin and tell my browser to accept cookies but to always clear them between sessions.
Ah thanks. That works perfectly.
You could try kbin.social or beehaw.org.
NYTimes has a ‘gift article’ feature where subscribers can share a few articles a month
Thanks. I had never heard of Johnson before his elevation. What a complete nutjob.
Yeah, I have that extension on firefox but it doesn't work for the nytimes. For me at least.
Goes? As in, like, just now? Not, I dunno, years ago?
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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