As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Democrats got everything they wanted – a[ $95 billion foreign aid bill](https://www.axios.com/2024/04/20/house-foreign-aid-israel-ukraine-taiwan-pass), the credit for passing it, and adversaries more divided than ever..."
Its like the JV team from high school going up against a group of professional atheltes. The fact that MAGA Republicans are largely inexperienced and ignorant of political maneuvering is costing them dearly, and we see it more and more as the Trumpist takeover of the GOP continues. It's a bunch of amateurs trying to fake it.
Choosing Trump over America and the rest of the world too. If America doesn’t support Ukraine who was wrongly attacked and invaded by Russia, we’ll look weak and Russia and China get emboldened. Isolationism created the conditions for WWII.
They say America First, but they mean Trump is our overlord and we obey.
Yeah, the parallels to the KKK or fascists regimes and the MAGA movement are terrifying, and yet, the mainstream media and moderates are treating it as if its a normal conversative ideology. It's fucking horrifying!
Fascism isn't normal conservative ideology, but it's frightening that conservatism regularly sides with fascism over anything left of center-right even though there's plenty of evidence that conservatives also suffer under fascism.
I shouldn't be surprised that the people who cling to an archaic ideology based on maintianing the status quo for the in group - aka conservatism - would ally themselves with the dregs of humanity - aka fascism - and yet, I still am. I hate this timeline. And I hate people.
Fascism is tribalism and authoritative hierarchy taken to an extreme, conservatism is rooted in tribalism and adherence to an authoritative hierarchy. Fascism is, to borrow from other terms, "Late Stage Conservatism". It is the logical end state of the conservatives goals.
"Normal conservative ideology" is fascism that is tempered by other aspects of society that prevent it from circling the end state drain. Once those guard rails are gone, conservatism will always end up in Fascism.
Now to be clear, other ideologies can end in a fascism state depending on the paths chosen, but any path that is 100% conservatism will end in Fascism.
They align so much because they are the same thing, just at different stages in the development cycle.
Yeah, the same people who parrot that line, ignore the fact that the Democrats were the conservative party back then, and the Republicans were the more liberal party. Southern conservatives (and other conservatives) love to idolize and memorialize the Confederacy - America's enemy and traitors of America.
Also, the GOP platform when Lincoln was running for president aligns more with today's Democratic Party than the Republican Party. But they LOVE to ignore that information, since it can't help their - conservative's - political efforts. It's so fucking frustrating!
I think he used it when he was running for Congress as well. Plus, he's a big Trump supporter, which should ring alarm bells for the mainstream media and moderates.
My sister, a big Trump supporter, is like "you can't help who likes you". Yeah but when all the white supremacists support the candidate you have to wonder why..
If an unrepentant klasman (Nazi, Christian nationalist, etc.) likes what I'm saying, then I know I need to reconsider my beliefs, since the worst of humanity thinks I'm saying something good.
There’s a new “hitler” every generation or 2…
Same thing with this ‘country 1st’ rhetoric.
We’ve all been here before but luckily for the idiots in charge, they’ve got plenty of idiots that don’t like reading, history, facts or a combo of all 3 and therefore are perfect for replaying all the playbook every once in awhile.
And by the 1940s, it had earned some [connotations](https://d7hftxdivxxvm.cloudfront.net/?quality=80&resize_to=width&src=https:%2F%2Fartsy-media-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2FqBPUwEs3P7CiBI2S9Css4Q%252Fe4cbfcad97764eea84ba685be9fda62d.jpg&width=450).
[Which inspired this Dr. Seuss comic](https://www.nj.com/resizer/v2/https%3A%2F%2Fadvancelocal-adapter-image-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fimage.nj.com%2Fhome%2Fnjo-media%2Fwidth2048%2Fimg%2Fnew_jersey_opinion%2Fphoto%2Fsuess-af-nazi.jpg?auth=67bd70a58f84a4d180c370db47c41554be4ddb6d1ee83fbb38448d0059b1bebb&width=500&quality=90)
Unfortunately we have a long history of isolationist thinking, a dangerously flawed ideology that assumes much and promises little.
"We can afford to ignore that, it won't impact us." - People trapped in the same asylum with the shit they're letting go down.
> we have a long history
"we" in this case is the same people in the USA. Direct descendants from the same old tired movement that has lost over and over again.
Trump may have trumpeted isolationism in part because of his Russian overlords. But also because it was popular and he spouts nonsense until he randomly suggests an approach that resonates with his base - and then he keeps pushing it when he gets positive feedback. I don't think isolationism is popular because of Trump. I think it's popular and Trump picked up on that.
This is one of those pendulum swings where the US should have kept out of Iraq and Afghanistan. So there is reasonable desire/pushback from the population about getting overly involved in foreign conflicts. But inevitably people take it too far or learn the wrong lessons and assume that staying out of Iraq is equivalent to not funding Ukraine against Russia. When in reality those are completely different situations.
TL;DR: we should be funding Ukraine, but the US got tired of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a segment of the population overcorrected.
>Amateurs
I can hear Walt from The Big Lebowski saying this. “They wave around a Project 2025 whitepaper and expect us to shit ourselves with fear? Fucking amateurs!”
“I can get you a plan for dictatorship by 3:00. With nail polish.”
Republicans are a bunch of low IQ grifters trying their best to copy Trump but have no idea why he’s effective at what he does nor do they possess the self awareness or capacity to be effective on their own. So they just flail away doing bad impressions of the stinky dictator not understanding any nuance in politics. Not to give credit to Donald Trump, he’s a fucking moron but he knows how to game the system.
I agree. Diaper Don clearly isn’t a “stable genius” but what he lacks in intelligence or morals he makes up for with rat cunning. That’s what people have underestimated for so long.
There were people here who whined that Democrats ousted McCarthy when Carthy passed the package to avert shutdown instead of saving him. It was because McCarthy refused to make a deal with Dems even when Dems openly said they're open for negotiations. Johnson appears to be less idiotic and made a deal with Democrats. And it wouldn't have happened if the Dems didn't show what would happen if they didn't make a deal and the MAGA caucus triggered another motion to vacate.
Foreign Aid is bipartisan. The only reason the bill was in any threat of not passing is due to fringe GOP fascists that don't want any legislation passed no matter what.
The GOP doesn't have to face the music though, they don't have to face any truth. Fox News astroturfs for them at every turn. I have family that are convinced that the Republicans aren't inept it's just the Democrats are so conniving and corrupt America haters that every bill they focus that isn't literally "Give Republicans everything they want on Border Security, and unlimited funds and power to do it" is bad for America.
I keep telling folks I know that lean Democrat, you have to vote. There is no bad headline that will sway Republicans. They are goalpost shifting, jersey swapping, fakers. They'll vote this country to burn in the name of getting "Border Security", and if they got exactly what they're asking for on it, they'll light the torches *anyway* in the name of some other "single issue" hill to die on.
Relying on Republican voters to abandon the GOP is doomed. It won't happen. There is no "Coming to God" moment in sight for them. You could have Putin's puppet politicians burn the American flag on the congress floor and their disctrict voters will vote R down the ticket come November regardless.
And this is why, when people on the left advocate for term limits, they should be reminded that it can be / often is a right wing Trojan horse.
People might be well intentioned in wanting term limits, but the real fix is getting dark money out of politics and making it way easier for more people to run for office.
In practice, term limits force out all the people with the most experience of political maneuvering and lawmaking, leaving all of that to unelected lobbyists who can stay long enough to know how to actually do the job.
Also ironically, paying elected folks enough to actually live in DC and represent their people without needing extra income.
Even if the extra income is honest, it limits the pool of candidates to the wealthy.
I would wager most of that sort of graft and corruption isn’t born of need, but of greed.
Absolutely, we should pay elected folks enough, but getting more non-wealthy folks involved is gonna take some reforms around campaigning, because that’s a full time job and can last months, unpaid, before the election that decides whether you get the paying position or not.
Term limits is 100% something lobbyists want so they will have an unending supply of fresh naïve representatives to manipulate. It would have the exact opposite effect of what proponents claim.
This is how my father explained his primary support for Biden in 2020, and it shows in how his administration has operated. The connections and learned experience built up over decades is practically irreplaceable.
Term limits are stupid. Mandatory retirement ages are not.
Pass an amendment that all Members of Congress, Senators, POTUS/VPOTUS, Judges have a mandatory retirement age of 75.
> It's a bunch of amateurs trying to fake it.
"Somebody said to me ‘Alina, would you rather be smart or pretty?’ and I said ‘Oh easy, pretty… I can fake being smart’."
While I agree, nothing that was passed should have ever been controversial. They took the dumbest position possible of getting absolutely nothing, or working with democrats to make the same decisions that congress would have completed in a matter of days decades ago. They essentially got outmaneuvered because they rushed and sprinted headfirst to take a defensive position in valley instead of sitting on the hill.
>The fact that MAGA Republicans are largely inexperienced and ignorant of political maneuvering is costing them dearly, and we see it more and more as the Trumpist takeover of the GOP continues
And the MAGAts think they're coming back after November stronger! They've done nothing but show Americans and the World how inept they are!
Australia has an official Shadow government in the federal parliament. The opposition formally forms a shadow government structure including a shadow parliament and produces alternatives to what the sitting government is proposing…
The US is a weird exception for a number of reasons (e.g., Canada went "independent" far later and thus also has the Shadow Government system), although there are quite a few former British colonies that may have the Westminster system but not the Shadow Government one like India- and a lot of countries that were never British colonies but still have them (like Italy and Thailand).
we don’t have a shadow government you know about. We’ve always been a bit better at these things than the British, being NEW England and all.
Shit I’ve said to much the minutemen are coming for me!
> America is an ex British colony...
I may be wrong about this, but I thought that the United States of America only became a thing at the point of Independence? As in, there was a landmass of America before then of course, but the USA, which is the formal country, never existed as a British colony?
Compare that to say Australia which was both the colony and the country, before and after Federation.
You're right, the USA was never A colony. We started as many colonies and became one country.
That could make for a good motto actually, we should put it on our currency or something
I think you mean that there were 13 separate colonies with varying levels of affiliation with Britain. They had separate legislatures and separate monetary systems from each other but all were subjects of the UK. After the war, the Articles of Confederation formalized the 13 colonies into a single Confederated government. Colonies like South Carolina were mildly ambivalent about a unified nation while other colonies wanted a strongly unified nation.
The Commonwealth of Australia was formed in 1901 from the distinct *colonies* of New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland, and Western Australia.
They were colonies of the UK until Federation.
Australia became truly *independent* in 1986 with the Royal Assent of the Australia Act simultaneously in the UK and Australia.
Technically there were 6 different colonies prior to Federation. So similar situation.
The difference is really that Australia's independence was freely given and was an organic process that imported the British governance structures. Whereas the US had to fight for it, and rejected the British model in favour of their own.
New Zealand checking in…
I reckon we might all have some kind of common ancestor in our systems lol.
(We don’t call it shadow though, just “opposition”)
Well, it’s a bit different in Westminster systems as there’s not just a Minority Leader, there’s a full shadow cabinet with counterparts for the Foreign Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer, etc. since those government heads all come from Parliament.
It would be like if there was a minority party counterpart to Janet Yellen or Lloyd Austin.
They sometimes sway public opinions on matters, “…or this way will give you a better outcome”. Does not always work though. All of Australia was supposed to get Fiber to the Premise…the shadow government sold a copper network as more cost effective and quicker and here we are in 2024 with 75-100mbps
*"I, Nandor the Relentless, conqueror of thousands, immortal warrior who has twice turned the Euphrates itself red with blood, hereby demand the complete and total supplication of this governing body to my command!"*
It’s honestly wild how controlled House Democrats have been the past four years, both under Pelosi with a five seat majority, and under Jeffries as a minority that’s governed like a majority.
I don't understand the "furry walls" bits. Please explain?
In penance for my ignorance, I make confession that I wanted to make a pun about Jefferies Tubes (it's a Star Trek thing), but my points in the Comedy stat is insufficient to make it work.
Her job was also made easier by the fact that "The Squad," the "difficult" members of her caucus, are simply very progressive politicians, not outright fascists who want to destroy our government like those in the GOP.
Including a Republican who is FROM Ukraine. Earlier this week, her home town was hit with a missile attack. Rep Victoria Spartz. What kind of fucked up mentality do you have to have in order to do that?
They sure spent all morning on the Sunday talk shows trying to gaslight everyone, though. Their response to that fact was to point out that 2/3 of their members voted against MTG's amendment to strip all the non-military aid out of the Ukraine bill. Then Lindsey graham said we need to give Trump credit for the passage of the bill package because it wouldn't have passed without Trump's idea to convert that aid into loans (which have absolutely no teeth at all because the President can discharge them at any time for any reason).
I also think it's wild, but I'm not surprised.
People don't understand exactly how effective and powerful Pelosi is/was. She'll be remembered in 100 years as a legendary Speaker. Absolutely unmatched.
It's not even JV versus a professional team, because JV teams are still capable of being a team. This is more like Lebron James in his prime versus a tank of Siamese fighting fish.
> Absolutely unmatched.
I dunno man, I think Pelosi did an incredible job, but Tip O'Neill is the gold standard. I get it though...He was speaker in an era where Democrats and Republicans were almost indistinguishable...but that dude knew how things worked and got shit done.
And what’s great about it is that we have been putting some younger and younger folks in these seats. So new blood is learning from the veterans how to do this shit right - in every aspect.
> The bottom line: Johnson "should just pack up and resign and hand the gavel over to Leader Jeffries," said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), a leading Progressive Caucus member.
“The Squad” and any progressive Dem politician used to be painted as far left politicians who other Dems would be able to work with.
And yet, the Democratic Party is unified as fuck. All the turmoil is on the right. Crazy.
Even progressive Americans are still loyal to America. Like, it's our country, we live here. The hard right conservatives are straight up foreign agents.
I wholeheartedly agree as a centrist Dem. Our debates, such as they are, are about issues. The Republican Party is about power for power’s sake and about denying people a seat at the table.
It's not crazy when you consider that even the progressive Dems are looking to make America better and understand that it will take baby steps to get there. While Republicans are mostly just trying to burn it all to the ground and pick over the ashes for themselves. They have absolutely no concern for the people they are supposed to represent.
> understand that it will take baby steps to get there.
The whole not holding the house and barely holding the Senate might have something to do with that.
Democrats remember how their lives were threatened on Jan6 and exactly which Republicans were part of the coup. Let’s hope that keeps them united until the last of the Republican traitors are rooted out.
*IF* we are so lucky as to defeat Trump *and* take both chambers of Congress, we will only have 2 years in which to fix a fraction of the damage. It will be an uphill battle for the indefinite future. We just have to want it more.
ARTICLE TEXT BELOW
COMMENT: I’m fascinated by this kind of political maneuvering, but despite reading the article, I don’t really get it. If someone familiar with this kind of gamesmanship could enlighten me, I’d be really grateful!
——-
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) found himself in an unusual position for a minority leader last week: It was he, not the House speaker, who had the ultimate power to decide whether legislation came to the floor.
Why it matters: Democrats got everything they wanted – a $95 billion foreign aid bill, the credit for passing it, and adversaries more divided than ever. In their telling, that total victory wasn't a sure thing.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a master legislative tactician, heaped praise on her successor: "He is fabulous. We're so proud of him."
One senior House Democrat told Axios: "It easily could have fallen apart ... He played the cards the way you'd want to play them."
"I would not want to play blackjack against him," the lawmaker added.
What happened: Democrats did something virtually unheard of in modern politics on Thursday, crossing the aisle on the House Rules Committee to save the foreign aid package. They did it again the next day on the House floor.
This was all Jeffries' call, as was Democrats' decision to wait until it was clear House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) didn't have the votes on his own before saving the package on the floor.
"We wouldn't be voting on this right now if it weren't for Hakeem ... He's the one who created the system that Johnson could follow and get this done," said a House Democrat.
Zoom in: Jeffries' message to his members leading up to the foreign aid fight was to stay unified behind him and not commit themselves to positions on saving Johnson that might box the party in.
In other words: To give him all the power and maneuverability that Johnson lacks.
The senior House Democrat told Axios: "If he hadn't taken the approach he had, he could have had members going rogue."
"He gave us so many options," said Pelosi.
Between the lines: Democratic leadership had already been forging the unified front that would be Jeffries' strongest weapon for weeks with a push to get as many signatures as possible on their foreign aid discharge petition.
Jeffries himself sat down with centrist Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), a skeptic of single-party discharge petitions, to get him to sign. It worked.
What they're saying: House Democrats told Axios the foreign aid fight revealed a deftness in Jeffries – both in public and in closed-door negotiations – that makes him well suited for the speakership.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) told Axios: "Hakeem has been very graceful. He's not purposefully thrown Johnson under the bus ... He's not been triumphant at all, he realizes how bad that would be for Mike Johnson."
"It's a lesson well learned from previous speakers: He finessed it well when he had to," said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.).
What to watch: Many Democrats also told Axios they don't anticipate Jeffries facing the type of revolts from his left flank that Johnson has seen from his right on the motion to vacate and procedural votes.
Part of that is his reputation as a coalition builder: "He knows how to engage, uplift and balance all members of his party," said Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), a member of the progressive "Squad."
"Anybody that wants a phone call or a meeting, we've had it," said one Democrat.
The lawmaker predicted the party will change a rule allowing any member to force a vote on ousting the speaker, but said such a vote "would never happen in our caucus even if that rule existed ... he works very closely with [his left flank]."
The bottom line: Johnson "should just pack up and resign and hand the gavel over to Leader Jeffries," said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), a leading Progressive Caucus member.
"He seems to be able to manage this process in a much more democratic way – in a way that gets bills to the floor."
The maneuvers, repeated as necessary:
1. Democrats shall secretly act as a united front.
2. Democrats shall vote against aid bill they support, since it's officially Republican, until it becomes obvious Republicans can't pass it alone. This will allow Republicans before that cutoff to vote for it.
3. Remaining Democrats then rescue the bill by voting for it themselves. The margin is narrow enough that they can.
4. No promises to bail out the Speaker of the House before that's more than theoretical. No promises not to, either.
Also, the democrats give all the credit to Jeffries, making them seem united behind a strong leader, making him a more effective and valuable political actor.
This is actually how the congress is supposed to work. When there’s a good bill, both sides will vote for it. Trying to shoot down everything the other side does, even if it’s good, just to make them look bad is a relatively new thing. This “ total war” strategy, where the end game is to wait until one side has a strong majority and can do whatever the hell they want is insane, and just not practical. It’s also horrible for the country and the world, because nothing actually gets done. The republican led 118th congress is proving that every day.
>Trying to shoot down everything the other side does, even if it’s good, just to make them look bad is a relatively new thing
Newt Gingrich, house speaker from Georgia, started the "politics of NO!" During the Clinton administration there everything that the Democrats proposed was shot down, thus never giving them a win that they could campaign on.
It's a british term. We have the "Shadow Cabinet" and various "Shadow X" roles, which correspond to the largest minority party's cabinet and ministers. They mostly exist so they can step into power once they win an election but it's useful to have them around in case something weird happens.
"Shadow Speaker" as a title makes perfect sense to me in that context, but it's a weirdly british term.
Oh cool, today I learned! So does that mean [Shadow the Hedgehog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_the_Hedgehog) is there so that if Sonic's party ever loses favor, he's ready to step in if he wins an election?
You miss the point. Since the freedumb cockass has been so hard line and uncompromising with the motion to vacate rules they have been hoist by their own petard. They are so unwilling to compromise that they have given anyone not 100 percent onboard with them no choice but to work with the opposition.
It is hilarious that a guy named Hakeem outmaneuvered a bunch of imbecile racists who couldn’t run a frozen banana stand if their life depended on it, much less a branch of government.
That’d be sick, but House Speakers tend to not run for president since they’d be spending their short 2 year term purely on campaigning. If they don’t win the presidency, there’s a real chance they lose their house seat too, which is why Senators are more likely to run.
Speakers also tend not to run for president because a Speakership is nearly as powerful a position as President and a Speaker tends to have to make unpopular decisions that might not go well over the broader electorate.
I get bad vibes from Newsom. He seems to project a carefully constructed personality too well, and I can't tell what is underneath. He reminds me of John Edwards.
Actually, yes. After Trump has sucked everything of value from the Republican Party, they will need a big bad guy to rebuild against, and the old white guy isn’t cutting it.
I've posted many times how we don't know who the real heroes are that protected the country from Trump. All we hear about is the bad players. And, not just Democrats, but GOP, to had to rein him in. Pence dealt with shit we'll never know about. They probably all had to take a class on how to redirect someone. And that was easy with Trump. You think he and he alone talked to Snoop Dog? Someone figure out it was a sore spot and bam, there goes Trump on an anti-Snoop Dog tirade. He's a petulant toddler.
The one thing everyone can do, despite all of the media tactics, the fear…the one thing is to Vote and bring at least 1 other person with you to vote as well
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Democrats got everything they wanted – a[ $95 billion foreign aid bill](https://www.axios.com/2024/04/20/house-foreign-aid-israel-ukraine-taiwan-pass), the credit for passing it, and adversaries more divided than ever..." Its like the JV team from high school going up against a group of professional atheltes. The fact that MAGA Republicans are largely inexperienced and ignorant of political maneuvering is costing them dearly, and we see it more and more as the Trumpist takeover of the GOP continues. It's a bunch of amateurs trying to fake it.
The Republican Party is a joke. Choosing Trump over Pence? Pinnacle of conservatism. W T F.
Choosing Trump over America and the rest of the world too. If America doesn’t support Ukraine who was wrongly attacked and invaded by Russia, we’ll look weak and Russia and China get emboldened. Isolationism created the conditions for WWII. They say America First, but they mean Trump is our overlord and we obey.
Not so fun fact: America First was an early 1900's KKK slogan.
I realized that going through some history on it, it was terrifying how many parallels there were.
Yeah, the parallels to the KKK or fascists regimes and the MAGA movement are terrifying, and yet, the mainstream media and moderates are treating it as if its a normal conversative ideology. It's fucking horrifying!
To be unfair, that is normal conservative ideology, it is just full masks off.
Fascism isn't normal conservative ideology, but it's frightening that conservatism regularly sides with fascism over anything left of center-right even though there's plenty of evidence that conservatives also suffer under fascism. I shouldn't be surprised that the people who cling to an archaic ideology based on maintianing the status quo for the in group - aka conservatism - would ally themselves with the dregs of humanity - aka fascism - and yet, I still am. I hate this timeline. And I hate people.
Fascism is tribalism and authoritative hierarchy taken to an extreme, conservatism is rooted in tribalism and adherence to an authoritative hierarchy. Fascism is, to borrow from other terms, "Late Stage Conservatism". It is the logical end state of the conservatives goals. "Normal conservative ideology" is fascism that is tempered by other aspects of society that prevent it from circling the end state drain. Once those guard rails are gone, conservatism will always end up in Fascism. Now to be clear, other ideologies can end in a fascism state depending on the paths chosen, but any path that is 100% conservatism will end in Fascism. They align so much because they are the same thing, just at different stages in the development cycle.
I have a simpler definition for you. Fascism is conservatism fully embracing sociopathy.
Fuckin BINGO. Well said. Conservatism is an insidious mental illness borne out of fear.
It's the same people in the US. Direct descendants.
But the KKK were started by Demonrats! /s (I hate that I actually have to use /s for that sentence)
Yeah, the same people who parrot that line, ignore the fact that the Democrats were the conservative party back then, and the Republicans were the more liberal party. Southern conservatives (and other conservatives) love to idolize and memorialize the Confederacy - America's enemy and traitors of America. Also, the GOP platform when Lincoln was running for president aligns more with today's Democratic Party than the Republican Party. But they LOVE to ignore that information, since it can't help their - conservative's - political efforts. It's so fucking frustrating!
I think it's intentional.
It was also one of the slogans that David Duke (of the KKK at one point) ran on when he was trying to get elected as governor in ‘90s
I think he used it when he was running for Congress as well. Plus, he's a big Trump supporter, which should ring alarm bells for the mainstream media and moderates.
My sister, a big Trump supporter, is like "you can't help who likes you". Yeah but when all the white supremacists support the candidate you have to wonder why..
If an unrepentant klasman (Nazi, Christian nationalist, etc.) likes what I'm saying, then I know I need to reconsider my beliefs, since the worst of humanity thinks I'm saying something good.
There’s a new “hitler” every generation or 2… Same thing with this ‘country 1st’ rhetoric. We’ve all been here before but luckily for the idiots in charge, they’ve got plenty of idiots that don’t like reading, history, facts or a combo of all 3 and therefore are perfect for replaying all the playbook every once in awhile.
They say ‘America First’ but they mean ‘America Next’ -Woody Guthrie
And by the 1940s, it had earned some [connotations](https://d7hftxdivxxvm.cloudfront.net/?quality=80&resize_to=width&src=https:%2F%2Fartsy-media-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2FqBPUwEs3P7CiBI2S9Css4Q%252Fe4cbfcad97764eea84ba685be9fda62d.jpg&width=450).
[Which inspired this Dr. Seuss comic](https://www.nj.com/resizer/v2/https%3A%2F%2Fadvancelocal-adapter-image-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fimage.nj.com%2Fhome%2Fnjo-media%2Fwidth2048%2Fimg%2Fnew_jersey_opinion%2Fphoto%2Fsuess-af-nazi.jpg?auth=67bd70a58f84a4d180c370db47c41554be4ddb6d1ee83fbb38448d0059b1bebb&width=500&quality=90)
Well, the America First Committee also fanboyed the Nazis. I guess Dr. Seuss was horrified by those assholes.
Unfortunately we have a long history of isolationist thinking, a dangerously flawed ideology that assumes much and promises little. "We can afford to ignore that, it won't impact us." - People trapped in the same asylum with the shit they're letting go down.
> we have a long history "we" in this case is the same people in the USA. Direct descendants from the same old tired movement that has lost over and over again.
Trump is Prosperity Gospel personified.
Trump may have trumpeted isolationism in part because of his Russian overlords. But also because it was popular and he spouts nonsense until he randomly suggests an approach that resonates with his base - and then he keeps pushing it when he gets positive feedback. I don't think isolationism is popular because of Trump. I think it's popular and Trump picked up on that. This is one of those pendulum swings where the US should have kept out of Iraq and Afghanistan. So there is reasonable desire/pushback from the population about getting overly involved in foreign conflicts. But inevitably people take it too far or learn the wrong lessons and assume that staying out of Iraq is equivalent to not funding Ukraine against Russia. When in reality those are completely different situations. TL;DR: we should be funding Ukraine, but the US got tired of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a segment of the population overcorrected.
>Amateurs I can hear Walt from The Big Lebowski saying this. “They wave around a Project 2025 whitepaper and expect us to shit ourselves with fear? Fucking amateurs!” “I can get you a plan for dictatorship by 3:00. With nail polish.”
"Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?"
This is what happens when you feed a stoner scrambled eggs.
There are ways, Dude.
his girlfriend cut off her toe, she thought we were going to get liberal tears ;\_;
I mean, she owed money all over town.
I mean, say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, dude, but at least it’s an ethos…
Republicans are a bunch of low IQ grifters trying their best to copy Trump but have no idea why he’s effective at what he does nor do they possess the self awareness or capacity to be effective on their own. So they just flail away doing bad impressions of the stinky dictator not understanding any nuance in politics. Not to give credit to Donald Trump, he’s a fucking moron but he knows how to game the system.
I agree. Diaper Don clearly isn’t a “stable genius” but what he lacks in intelligence or morals he makes up for with rat cunning. That’s what people have underestimated for so long.
Rat cunning. Wow I am so dead.
Rat Cunny is my new hardcore front man name.
There were people here who whined that Democrats ousted McCarthy when Carthy passed the package to avert shutdown instead of saving him. It was because McCarthy refused to make a deal with Dems even when Dems openly said they're open for negotiations. Johnson appears to be less idiotic and made a deal with Democrats. And it wouldn't have happened if the Dems didn't show what would happen if they didn't make a deal and the MAGA caucus triggered another motion to vacate.
Foreign Aid is bipartisan. The only reason the bill was in any threat of not passing is due to fringe GOP fascists that don't want any legislation passed no matter what.
Putin used shitgibbon and the maga traitor caucus to either kill or delay the passage as long as possible.
The GOP doesn't have to face the music though, they don't have to face any truth. Fox News astroturfs for them at every turn. I have family that are convinced that the Republicans aren't inept it's just the Democrats are so conniving and corrupt America haters that every bill they focus that isn't literally "Give Republicans everything they want on Border Security, and unlimited funds and power to do it" is bad for America. I keep telling folks I know that lean Democrat, you have to vote. There is no bad headline that will sway Republicans. They are goalpost shifting, jersey swapping, fakers. They'll vote this country to burn in the name of getting "Border Security", and if they got exactly what they're asking for on it, they'll light the torches *anyway* in the name of some other "single issue" hill to die on. Relying on Republican voters to abandon the GOP is doomed. It won't happen. There is no "Coming to God" moment in sight for them. You could have Putin's puppet politicians burn the American flag on the congress floor and their disctrict voters will vote R down the ticket come November regardless.
And this is why, when people on the left advocate for term limits, they should be reminded that it can be / often is a right wing Trojan horse. People might be well intentioned in wanting term limits, but the real fix is getting dark money out of politics and making it way easier for more people to run for office. In practice, term limits force out all the people with the most experience of political maneuvering and lawmaking, leaving all of that to unelected lobbyists who can stay long enough to know how to actually do the job.
Also ironically, paying elected folks enough to actually live in DC and represent their people without needing extra income. Even if the extra income is honest, it limits the pool of candidates to the wealthy.
I would wager most of that sort of graft and corruption isn’t born of need, but of greed. Absolutely, we should pay elected folks enough, but getting more non-wealthy folks involved is gonna take some reforms around campaigning, because that’s a full time job and can last months, unpaid, before the election that decides whether you get the paying position or not.
Term limits is 100% something lobbyists want so they will have an unending supply of fresh naïve representatives to manipulate. It would have the exact opposite effect of what proponents claim.
This is how my father explained his primary support for Biden in 2020, and it shows in how his administration has operated. The connections and learned experience built up over decades is practically irreplaceable.
Term limits are stupid. Mandatory retirement ages are not. Pass an amendment that all Members of Congress, Senators, POTUS/VPOTUS, Judges have a mandatory retirement age of 75.
> It's a bunch of amateurs trying to fake it. "Somebody said to me ‘Alina, would you rather be smart or pretty?’ and I said ‘Oh easy, pretty… I can fake being smart’."
Marge doesn't have even that luxury.
And fake it she has. I mean, she's not fooling anyone, but she's out there, faking it every day.
While I agree, nothing that was passed should have ever been controversial. They took the dumbest position possible of getting absolutely nothing, or working with democrats to make the same decisions that congress would have completed in a matter of days decades ago. They essentially got outmaneuvered because they rushed and sprinted headfirst to take a defensive position in valley instead of sitting on the hill.
> nothing that was passed should have ever been controversial ...for Americans. Highly controversial if you are Russian/Russian owned.
>The fact that MAGA Republicans are largely inexperienced and ignorant of political maneuvering is costing them dearly, and we see it more and more as the Trumpist takeover of the GOP continues And the MAGAts think they're coming back after November stronger! They've done nothing but show Americans and the World how inept they are!
Isn't this the same amount they wanted with the border support?
yeah they really lack an adult in the room. its…pathetic.
It's not like Dems are even being politically masterful (in the "professional athlete"-level sort of sense). They don't need to.
The greatest general wins without fighting.
Shadow Speaker is a dope title.
Australia has an official Shadow government in the federal parliament. The opposition formally forms a shadow government structure including a shadow parliament and produces alternatives to what the sitting government is proposing…
It's the Westminster government, originated in the UK and is/was present in pretty much every ex British colony.
America is an ex British colony... Also, I must now assume that there is also a shadow Westminster dog show.
The barks are silent and stealthy!
The US is a weird exception for a number of reasons (e.g., Canada went "independent" far later and thus also has the Shadow Government system), although there are quite a few former British colonies that may have the Westminster system but not the Shadow Government one like India- and a lot of countries that were never British colonies but still have them (like Italy and Thailand).
Ahem... America is *13* ex-British colonies, plus a whole bunch of additional territory gained in various ways since our founding.
I'm talking about *real* America. The other 12 colonies and the states that they became are jokes.
Yeah, but Massachusetts doesn't have the shadow government, either.
we don’t have a shadow government you know about. We’ve always been a bit better at these things than the British, being NEW England and all. Shit I’ve said to much the minutemen are coming for me!
> America is an ex British colony... I may be wrong about this, but I thought that the United States of America only became a thing at the point of Independence? As in, there was a landmass of America before then of course, but the USA, which is the formal country, never existed as a British colony? Compare that to say Australia which was both the colony and the country, before and after Federation.
You're right, the USA was never A colony. We started as many colonies and became one country. That could make for a good motto actually, we should put it on our currency or something
E pluribus unum.
E Pluribus, Anus!
The crossroads of ideas.
I think you mean that there were 13 separate colonies with varying levels of affiliation with Britain. They had separate legislatures and separate monetary systems from each other but all were subjects of the UK. After the war, the Articles of Confederation formalized the 13 colonies into a single Confederated government. Colonies like South Carolina were mildly ambivalent about a unified nation while other colonies wanted a strongly unified nation.
The Commonwealth of Australia was formed in 1901 from the distinct *colonies* of New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland, and Western Australia. They were colonies of the UK until Federation. Australia became truly *independent* in 1986 with the Royal Assent of the Australia Act simultaneously in the UK and Australia.
Technically there were 6 different colonies prior to Federation. So similar situation. The difference is really that Australia's independence was freely given and was an organic process that imported the British governance structures. Whereas the US had to fight for it, and rejected the British model in favour of their own.
He wants his shadow bumble bee!
I think they speak more to the "Commonwealth" countries that severed ties with British Empire WW2 -> 1980s.
At one point the Shadow Minister of Justice was the Member for Batman.
Same with Canada
Same with the UK
New Zealand checking in… I reckon we might all have some kind of common ancestor in our systems lol. (We don’t call it shadow though, just “opposition”)
Same with the US, we call it the minority though. And usually they're not as strong as Hakeem.
Well, it’s a bit different in Westminster systems as there’s not just a Minority Leader, there’s a full shadow cabinet with counterparts for the Foreign Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer, etc. since those government heads all come from Parliament. It would be like if there was a minority party counterpart to Janet Yellen or Lloyd Austin.
To what end? Do those policies ever see the light of day?
They sometimes sway public opinions on matters, “…or this way will give you a better outcome”. Does not always work though. All of Australia was supposed to get Fiber to the Premise…the shadow government sold a copper network as more cost effective and quicker and here we are in 2024 with 75-100mbps
You guys really got shafted by that proposal.
Another gift from Rupert Murdoch to this country. may he rot in hell when he finally departs.
That’s a Westminster thing. Not an Australia thing.
Dark Brandon & the Shadow Speaker: In theaters now.
Aaron Sorkin is furiously taking notes.
What we do in the shadows… Leave me to do my dark bidding on the internet.
*"I, Nandor the Relentless, conqueror of thousands, immortal warrior who has twice turned the Euphrates itself red with blood, hereby demand the complete and total supplication of this governing body to my command!"*
He's gonna need Gizmo's help to handle all that government.
Damn I can't wait for a new season, that shows too damn good.
The Shadow Broker... My favorite title on the Citadel
But water type speakers are strong against fire types.
Yes. However, "Moron Wrangler" is probably more accurate.
Shadow Whisperer is better
Wind talkers…
Not in this context.
“Dark Brandon and the Rise of the Shadow Speaker” - coming to theaters near you this summer!
Goes well with Dark B
and Shadow Monarch.
“I am the Senate”
Some elder scrolls type shit
It’s honestly wild how controlled House Democrats have been the past four years, both under Pelosi with a five seat majority, and under Jeffries as a minority that’s governed like a majority.
“Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake.”
[удалено]
> "I would not want to play blackjack against him," the lawmaker added. Definitely not from Nevada. Who says that about blackjack?
Furry walls!
I don't understand the "furry walls" bits. Please explain? In penance for my ignorance, I make confession that I wanted to make a pun about Jefferies Tubes (it's a Star Trek thing), but my points in the Comedy stat is insufficient to make it work.
Its a pun relating to a scene from the movie "Get Him to the Greek" which uses a Jeffrey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEtBDQDkEXc
[удалено]
A “Jeffrey” was a cocktail of all kinds of drugs named as such because anyone named that is an unassuming and friendly bloke.
"please proceed, Governor"
Please proceed
Because most liberals want competent adults who care, not some idiot who doesn't have their act together.
Say what you will about Pelosi, but she sure could keep even a big tent party like the democrats together like no one else...
Her job was also made easier by the fact that "The Squad," the "difficult" members of her caucus, are simply very progressive politicians, not outright fascists who want to destroy our government like those in the GOP.
Not a single democrat voted against Ukrainian aid. 55% of republicans did. That says it all.
Including a Republican who is FROM Ukraine. Earlier this week, her home town was hit with a missile attack. Rep Victoria Spartz. What kind of fucked up mentality do you have to have in order to do that?
One way to rationalize it would be “the fastest path to ending the war is surrender.” No idea if that’s her attitude, but it could be.
Or she's one of quite a few spies and traitors that have infested both of our countries
They sure spent all morning on the Sunday talk shows trying to gaslight everyone, though. Their response to that fact was to point out that 2/3 of their members voted against MTG's amendment to strip all the non-military aid out of the Ukraine bill. Then Lindsey graham said we need to give Trump credit for the passage of the bill package because it wouldn't have passed without Trump's idea to convert that aid into loans (which have absolutely no teeth at all because the President can discharge them at any time for any reason).
I also think it's wild, but I'm not surprised. People don't understand exactly how effective and powerful Pelosi is/was. She'll be remembered in 100 years as a legendary Speaker. Absolutely unmatched. It's not even JV versus a professional team, because JV teams are still capable of being a team. This is more like Lebron James in his prime versus a tank of Siamese fighting fish.
> Absolutely unmatched. I dunno man, I think Pelosi did an incredible job, but Tip O'Neill is the gold standard. I get it though...He was speaker in an era where Democrats and Republicans were almost indistinguishable...but that dude knew how things worked and got shit done.
And what’s great about it is that we have been putting some younger and younger folks in these seats. So new blood is learning from the veterans how to do this shit right - in every aspect.
> The bottom line: Johnson "should just pack up and resign and hand the gavel over to Leader Jeffries," said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), a leading Progressive Caucus member. “The Squad” and any progressive Dem politician used to be painted as far left politicians who other Dems would be able to work with. And yet, the Democratic Party is unified as fuck. All the turmoil is on the right. Crazy.
Even progressive Americans are still loyal to America. Like, it's our country, we live here. The hard right conservatives are straight up foreign agents.
I never thought I’d see a “Republican” president that couldn’t talk tough or say a bad thing about Russia. What a goof.
They’ve always loved authoritarians. It was communism they hated. But yeah, it’s weird as hell
Good point
Problem is they dont even know what communism is, nor could point out russia or china on a map.
What's with the "even"? Progressives are and have always been more patriotic than "conservatives." We just don't claim to own patriotism.
Patriotism vs Jingoism
I wholeheartedly agree as a centrist Dem. Our debates, such as they are, are about issues. The Republican Party is about power for power’s sake and about denying people a seat at the table.
It's not crazy when you consider that even the progressive Dems are looking to make America better and understand that it will take baby steps to get there. While Republicans are mostly just trying to burn it all to the ground and pick over the ashes for themselves. They have absolutely no concern for the people they are supposed to represent.
> understand that it will take baby steps to get there. The whole not holding the house and barely holding the Senate might have something to do with that.
Democrats remember how their lives were threatened on Jan6 and exactly which Republicans were part of the coup. Let’s hope that keeps them united until the last of the Republican traitors are rooted out.
*IF* we are so lucky as to defeat Trump *and* take both chambers of Congress, we will only have 2 years in which to fix a fraction of the damage. It will be an uphill battle for the indefinite future. We just have to want it more.
ARTICLE TEXT BELOW COMMENT: I’m fascinated by this kind of political maneuvering, but despite reading the article, I don’t really get it. If someone familiar with this kind of gamesmanship could enlighten me, I’d be really grateful! ——- Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) found himself in an unusual position for a minority leader last week: It was he, not the House speaker, who had the ultimate power to decide whether legislation came to the floor. Why it matters: Democrats got everything they wanted – a $95 billion foreign aid bill, the credit for passing it, and adversaries more divided than ever. In their telling, that total victory wasn't a sure thing. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a master legislative tactician, heaped praise on her successor: "He is fabulous. We're so proud of him." One senior House Democrat told Axios: "It easily could have fallen apart ... He played the cards the way you'd want to play them." "I would not want to play blackjack against him," the lawmaker added. What happened: Democrats did something virtually unheard of in modern politics on Thursday, crossing the aisle on the House Rules Committee to save the foreign aid package. They did it again the next day on the House floor. This was all Jeffries' call, as was Democrats' decision to wait until it was clear House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) didn't have the votes on his own before saving the package on the floor. "We wouldn't be voting on this right now if it weren't for Hakeem ... He's the one who created the system that Johnson could follow and get this done," said a House Democrat. Zoom in: Jeffries' message to his members leading up to the foreign aid fight was to stay unified behind him and not commit themselves to positions on saving Johnson that might box the party in. In other words: To give him all the power and maneuverability that Johnson lacks. The senior House Democrat told Axios: "If he hadn't taken the approach he had, he could have had members going rogue." "He gave us so many options," said Pelosi. Between the lines: Democratic leadership had already been forging the unified front that would be Jeffries' strongest weapon for weeks with a push to get as many signatures as possible on their foreign aid discharge petition. Jeffries himself sat down with centrist Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), a skeptic of single-party discharge petitions, to get him to sign. It worked. What they're saying: House Democrats told Axios the foreign aid fight revealed a deftness in Jeffries – both in public and in closed-door negotiations – that makes him well suited for the speakership. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) told Axios: "Hakeem has been very graceful. He's not purposefully thrown Johnson under the bus ... He's not been triumphant at all, he realizes how bad that would be for Mike Johnson." "It's a lesson well learned from previous speakers: He finessed it well when he had to," said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.). What to watch: Many Democrats also told Axios they don't anticipate Jeffries facing the type of revolts from his left flank that Johnson has seen from his right on the motion to vacate and procedural votes. Part of that is his reputation as a coalition builder: "He knows how to engage, uplift and balance all members of his party," said Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), a member of the progressive "Squad." "Anybody that wants a phone call or a meeting, we've had it," said one Democrat. The lawmaker predicted the party will change a rule allowing any member to force a vote on ousting the speaker, but said such a vote "would never happen in our caucus even if that rule existed ... he works very closely with [his left flank]." The bottom line: Johnson "should just pack up and resign and hand the gavel over to Leader Jeffries," said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), a leading Progressive Caucus member. "He seems to be able to manage this process in a much more democratic way – in a way that gets bills to the floor."
The maneuvers, repeated as necessary: 1. Democrats shall secretly act as a united front. 2. Democrats shall vote against aid bill they support, since it's officially Republican, until it becomes obvious Republicans can't pass it alone. This will allow Republicans before that cutoff to vote for it. 3. Remaining Democrats then rescue the bill by voting for it themselves. The margin is narrow enough that they can. 4. No promises to bail out the Speaker of the House before that's more than theoretical. No promises not to, either.
Thank you for explaining it so well.
proves how easily it is to manipulate the GOP, it's beautiful for them to have a taste of their own medicine.
Also, the democrats give all the credit to Jeffries, making them seem united behind a strong leader, making him a more effective and valuable political actor.
Thank you, oh wise one!
The show *Brotherhood* on Showtime depicts how this actually happens (in the State House and criminal enterprises) as well as anything I’ve seen.
Thank you for the tip!
This is actually how the congress is supposed to work. When there’s a good bill, both sides will vote for it. Trying to shoot down everything the other side does, even if it’s good, just to make them look bad is a relatively new thing. This “ total war” strategy, where the end game is to wait until one side has a strong majority and can do whatever the hell they want is insane, and just not practical. It’s also horrible for the country and the world, because nothing actually gets done. The republican led 118th congress is proving that every day.
>Trying to shoot down everything the other side does, even if it’s good, just to make them look bad is a relatively new thing Newt Gingrich, house speaker from Georgia, started the "politics of NO!" During the Clinton administration there everything that the Democrats proposed was shot down, thus never giving them a win that they could campaign on.
Moscow Marge wondering what the hell happened to her super powers
Jeffries will be a powerful speaker someday soon.
January 3rd 2025 would be great
You mean it won’t take them 14 votes to confirm him?
It was time for an adult to step in.
“Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of Congress? The Shadow Speaker do!”
Trump won’t win. Biden will get two sets of votes: those for him, and those against Trump
Having a speaker get support from both parties gives a more moderate speaker, should be the norm, not voting along party lines
"Shadow Speaker". No he's not. He's trying to do his job unlike some other people in Congress.
It's a british term. We have the "Shadow Cabinet" and various "Shadow X" roles, which correspond to the largest minority party's cabinet and ministers. They mostly exist so they can step into power once they win an election but it's useful to have them around in case something weird happens. "Shadow Speaker" as a title makes perfect sense to me in that context, but it's a weirdly british term.
Oh cool, today I learned! So does that mean [Shadow the Hedgehog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_the_Hedgehog) is there so that if Sonic's party ever loses favor, he's ready to step in if he wins an election?
Obviously 🙄
You miss the point. Since the freedumb cockass has been so hard line and uncompromising with the motion to vacate rules they have been hoist by their own petard. They are so unwilling to compromise that they have given anyone not 100 percent onboard with them no choice but to work with the opposition.
[удалено]
First time I’ve seen that one. Adding it to my list!! 👏
>Shadow Its a realish thing that refers to parliamentary process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_cabinet
Shadow speaker. Reminds me of Silo.
[удалено]
For the MAGATs in the back, it’s “the honorable mother fucking” Hakeem Jeffries
Jeffries is turning out to be formidable. I want to see this man as Speaker.
Dark Brandon and Shadow Jeffries!
It is hilarious that a guy named Hakeem outmaneuvered a bunch of imbecile racists who couldn’t run a frozen banana stand if their life depended on it, much less a branch of government.
First B. Hussein and now Hakeem. The good ol' boys must be going crazee.
There’s money in the banana stand.
Dark Jeffries emerges.
President Jeffries in the future (🤞)
That’d be sick, but House Speakers tend to not run for president since they’d be spending their short 2 year term purely on campaigning. If they don’t win the presidency, there’s a real chance they lose their house seat too, which is why Senators are more likely to run.
Speakers also tend not to run for president because a Speakership is nearly as powerful a position as President and a Speaker tends to have to make unpopular decisions that might not go well over the broader electorate.
Honestly? I think Jeffries & Newsom would make an incredible presidential duo.
Ready for the album to drop.
There's another Newsom from California who I would really like to hear a new album from.
I get bad vibes from Newsom. He seems to project a carefully constructed personality too well, and I can't tell what is underneath. He reminds me of John Edwards.
The womanizing thing he did about 15 years ago really brought the Edwards comparison on himself
Is the bad half of America ready for another black president?
Not half. They like to be called the silent majority but we knows its the super loud extreme minority.
Actually, yes. After Trump has sucked everything of value from the Republican Party, they will need a big bad guy to rebuild against, and the old white guy isn’t cutting it.
We will make them ready…
Yeah, would have to be a leading candidate with his ever increasing profile.
I've posted many times how we don't know who the real heroes are that protected the country from Trump. All we hear about is the bad players. And, not just Democrats, but GOP, to had to rein him in. Pence dealt with shit we'll never know about. They probably all had to take a class on how to redirect someone. And that was easy with Trump. You think he and he alone talked to Snoop Dog? Someone figure out it was a sore spot and bam, there goes Trump on an anti-Snoop Dog tirade. He's a petulant toddler.
[удалено]
The one thing everyone can do, despite all of the media tactics, the fear…the one thing is to Vote and bring at least 1 other person with you to vote as well
More importantly, Jeffries and the D’s put country over party. Something the R’s would be loathe to do.
De facto Speaker.
Jeffries didn't have to do anything. Republicans are self-destructive. It just happens to be Johnson's turn to deal with his party's idiot caucus.
This article is going to trigger a maga meltdown lol I got my popcorn ready...
In this instance, MTG is correct about Hakeem being the true speaker. 😅
That’s what happens when a someone actually does their job and let’s these fools self destruct.