EPTBut according to this there even looks like there will be some Progressive Democrats who will vote to keep Mike Johnson as Speaker if it comes to a vote rofl.
This whole saga is just endlessly entertaining.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4192
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16056 Posts
But according to this there even looks like there will be some Progressive Democrats who will vote to keep Mike Johnson as Speaker if it comes to a vote rofl. This whole saga is just endlessly entertaining. | ||
KwarK
United States42636 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23214 Posts
On April 22 2024 10:14 Vindicare605 wrote: Doesn't look ole Marjory is going to back down from her threats to impeach ANOTHER Republican speaker. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/mtg-demands-speaker-johnson-resign-ukraine-1235008167/ But according to this there even looks like there will be some Progressive Democrats who will vote to keep Mike Johnson as Speaker if it comes to a vote rofl. This whole saga is just endlessly entertaining. This is what I wrote when you first asked but got distracted and didn't post: My read is that MTG wants to call the vote, everyone believes Democrats will save him, and the FART caucus is using the next week to see if Democrats saving him can peel enough Republicans away to make some noise. Like if they could force a majority of Democrats to make a Republican (Johnson) speaker and take that symbolic win without having to break congress indefinitely. Upper limit is probably not far from the 112 that voted against the Ukraine bill which would be right around enough. No one knows whether Republicans could rally against Johnson in that context, or whether Democrats would just let him lose after seemingly assuring him they would protect him. So that's what's happening this week. Gauging whether MTG could get close to the 112 using the rationale that they'd be canceling out a Democrat vote. Jeffries checking to see how many Democrats he can get to vote for Johnson if it's the only way to keep congress from breaking and see if he can overcome it potentially requiring a majority of his caucus voting to empower a pretty unhinged (though less/differently than the FARTs) Republican. If there's a chance it could work out poorly for Democrats/boost her standings in the party she'll do it. If the math says that it's basically certain she'll look like a jackass, cost Republicans winnable elections, and/or break the government indefinitely, I give it 50:50 odds she does it anyway. TLDR: I think it's more likely than not that she calls to vacate Johnson more tldr if you want it+ Show Spoiler + But there's a chance (largely basing this off a comment from her about not hurting her caucus I read rather than watched/listened to) that someone convinces her she's better off not calling the vote and having the FARTs campaign on/around replacing Johnson in the next congress "You gotta vote in more MAGA to stop Pelosi from becoming speaker again!". | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1922 Posts
On April 20 2024 21:06 Salazarz wrote: Her choice of words was not particularly great, but it's a stretch to insist that she is an antisemite over essentially saying that Israeli lobby has strong influence over US policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict, considering that the current premier minister of Israel has straight up said that 'US is easy to control.' Seems more like an acknowledgement of the fact rather than some sort of malice towards Jews in general; besides, it's not as if she is the first or the last inspector to come to those same conclusions. @Kwark: Conflict between Israel & Palestine didn't begin on October 7th. So either Hamas aren't the only ones responsible for deaths that happened afterwards, or the Allies should be considered responsible for deaths in the battle for Berlin. It's logically inconsistent to insist that Nazis bear full responsibility for all of deaths in WW2 while Israel bears zero responsibility for deaths in the Palestine-Gaza conflict. It's also reductionist and in my opinion straight up stupid to reduce any major conflict in history to 'bad guys did bad things, good guys punished them for it.' Like, plenty of people predicted WW2 would happen 20 years before Nazism became a thing and Hitler came to power. Germany didn't just decide to start killing dudes and taking land in a vacuum, the responses to Hitler's initial expansion could have been better as well, etc etc. It's a complicated topic; just like the question of whether certain actions in WW2 such as above mentioned firebombings or the nuclear strikes on Japan etc were truly necessary and justified or not. Likewise the conflict between Palestine and Israel is complex, there's a long-running list of grievances on both sides and both hands have blood on their hands. To pretend it's a simple matter of evil Hamas terrorists killing peaceful Jews because they are a genocidal death cult that just happens to hate Jews for no reason is asinine. Not to harp unneccessary on minor Things, but 20 years before hitler came to Power would habe been in 1913. So ww2 starting then Sound kinda wrong. Sure, ww2 die Not just Happen because germans evil and the consequences of ww1 did Fall very Hard on germans, helping to radicalize the people, but also there aren't man wars in history where the Motivation to defend were better established. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17979 Posts
On April 22 2024 11:50 GreenHorizons wrote: This is what I wrote when you first asked but got distracted and didn't post: My read is that MTG wants to call the vote, everyone believes Democrats will save him, and the FART caucus is using the next week to see if Democrats saving him can peel enough Republicans away to make some noise. Like if they could force a majority of Democrats to make a Republican (Johnson) speaker and take that symbolic win without having to break congress indefinitely. Upper limit is probably not far from the 112 that voted against the Ukraine bill which would be right around enough. No one knows whether Republicans could rally against Johnson in that context, or whether Democrats would just let him lose after seemingly assuring him they would protect him. So that's what's happening this week. Gauging whether MTG could get close to the 112 using the rationale that they'd be canceling out a Democrat vote. Jeffries checking to see how many Democrats he can get to vote for Johnson if it's the only way to keep congress from breaking and see if he can overcome it potentially requiring a majority of his caucus voting to empower a pretty unhinged (though less/differently than the FARTs) Republican. If there's a chance it could work out poorly for Democrats/boost her standings in the party she'll do it. If the math says that it's basically certain she'll look like a jackass, cost Republicans winnable elections, and/or break the government indefinitely, I give it 50:50 odds she does it anyway. TLDR: I think it's more likely than not that she calls to vacate Johnson more tldr if you want it+ Show Spoiler + But there's a chance (largely basing this off a comment from her about not hurting her caucus I read rather than watched/listened to) that someone convinces her she's better off not calling the vote and having the FARTs campaign on/around replacing Johnson in the next congress "You gotta vote in more MAGA to stop Pelosi from becoming speaker again!". I think democrats would be extremely stupid for voting for Johnson. Then they could've voted for McCarthy a few months ago and been in a better spot. All the arguments back then for not supporting McCarthy, and not supporting Johnson in one of the many many votes they had to pick him, was that he's a conservative who won't support most of their policies. That he's an actual politician and not a raving lunatic like MTG shouldn't be enough to gain democrat support. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23214 Posts
On April 20 2024 16:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Democrats and their rank and file supporters have been painfully bad on Gaza, but at least college kids are doing what they can. After Columbia University sicked the NYPD on students protesting at the University, more students came in to keep the protest going. Yale students have also joined in solidarity making similar demands of Yale + Show Spoiler + While the Columbia protest continues + Show Spoiler + Students at other schools have announced they would also hold various rallies, walkouts, and so on in solidarity. www.cnn.com Biden has responded to these pro-Palestinian protests. President Biden on Monday weighed in on the pro-Palestine demonstrations taking place at elite university campuses. "I condemn the antisemitic protests," Mr. Biden told reporters after an Earth Day Event in Northern Virginia Monday. "That's why I've set up a program to deal with that... www.cbsnews.com Biden framing them as antisemitic protests rather than pro-Palestinian protests while setting up "a program to deal with it" is another example of what I'm talking about when I say Democrats are busy (and have been for decades) laying the foundations for 21st century fascism, regardless of how 2024 turns out. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44263 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24676 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42636 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23214 Posts
On April 24 2024 07:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Framing pro-Palestinian protests as anti-Semitic is a bad take for Biden, and I disagree with his interpretation of those protests. I'm with you on that part. I'm still struggling to see how this lays the foundation for fascism though. Republicans/Fascists also frame pro-Palestinian protests as antisemitic and will find the fact that Biden already laid the foundation for that framing in Democrat's minds and provided a program to help fascists crack down on such protests quite useful. Then fascists can point to it being a critique and product/policy that came from Democrats, that "the libs" accepted it when Biden/Democrats did it, and any opposition now is just them being bitter partisans. If Democrats push it, they'll be labeled as sympathizers or terrorists themselves, so they won't, and will call that "pragmatism". Same for the Cop City in ATL, domestic spying, the (still in use) 2001 AUMF, policing the public in NYC using the military, cracking down on "illegals", and the list goes on and on. After Democrats lay down all these foundations for fascism and eventually lose control of them (since they won't win every election in perpetuity) they'll pick up their batons in a vain attempt to avoid being the targets of those policies, institutions, etc. by finding "bipartisan compromises" on where to direct that fascism among the US public and oppressed people around the globe. Which is uncomfortably acceptable to relatively affluent cishet white men. Because to be clear, Democrats have been making these kinds of "compromises" with less overtly fascist Republicans for decades (like consistently increasing police budgets, DOMA, and so on). Which brings us back to the bipartisan framing of pro-Palestinian actions as "antisemitic protests" that is already aligning Democrats and Republicans around cracking down on these purportedly "antisemitic protests" in a tiny, comparably placid, preview of what is to come if they aren't stopped (organized civil disobedience, like Biden is joining Republicans to crack down on, will be required) before then. Hopefully that helps you understand my point? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42636 Posts
I’m pro Palestinian statehood and think Israel is a mistake, though not one we can undo. But that doesn’t mean I support the existence of a Hamas ruled state in perpetual genocidal war with Israel, and that seems to be what it’d look like. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25133 Posts
I imagine this is one of those occasions where not being in self-exile from Twitter would probably help as it’s definitely good for on-site citizen journalism or self-documentation | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10488 Posts
On April 24 2024 10:10 JimmiC wrote: Depends what is being said and chanted, if they are like ones up here the government is condemning, then there is loud chants celebrating Oct 7th. Things like death to America and of course worse. If you were mad at the MAGA protests that included a lot of racism and did not think it was a few bad apples. Welcome to the other side of the coin. I believe the overall thought was that the non racists should chase them out and yell them down. That did not happen here. So do you condone some racism as long as it’s from your side or not? I agree that it's good to point out double standards and hypocrisy from people on the left regarding such things but we should still point out the badness of the powerful people trying to slander entire groups of peaceful protestors by labeling them as bigots. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13921 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10488 Posts
On April 24 2024 15:18 Sermokala wrote: Yeah the bigotry isn't the issue it's people pointing out the bigotry that's the issue. You can safely ignore people without power because we don't respect them or what they say but the people we do think have value should know better than call out bad actors. I can't understand your writing, but yes, "the issue" is how powerful people can slander entire groups of peaceful protestors as bigots and people like yourself will gobble it up as opposed to the small minority that actually may be bigots. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17979 Posts
On April 24 2024 09:14 KwarK wrote: It’d be a lot easier to be pro Palestinian without being anti semitic if Palestine wasn’t currently politically and militarily controlled by anti semites. Right now you have to be against the political embodiment of Palestinians while being pro Palestinian to walk that line. That doesn't sound like the position of the Palestinian Authority, the PLO or Abbas. Where does this idea that Palestine is governed by anti-Semites come from? A minority of Palestinians was ruled by Hamas. But more interestingly, is the reverse possible? Can you be pro-Israel without being anti-Palestinian? Because the current Israeli government has both said, and acted on, some things that are equally atrocious to Hamas, especially when taken from the position of power that the Israeli government enjoys. | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
Calling all critisism "anti semite" is a very powerful "do whatever you want card" for Israel, but it has long expired in Europe, and should become weaker even in the US. Another thing I am curious about is how Israel things they can win this. For every Palestinian they kill, the Hamas gets potential recruits, which is probably why they did the initial attack in the first place. Their actions for the last months will be remembered for centuries, and at some point, it will backfire. This is a conflict which can never be solved by violence, but in Israel, that is what is everyone taught to believe. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28662 Posts
In fact, most supporters of palestinians will, logically consistently, argue that the type of massive civilian casualties and suffering endured by palestinians is more likely to bolster support for Hamas (and opposition to Israel) than to weaken it, and thus, that opposing Israel's current course of action is supporting Israel, not that different from supporting americans through opposing Trump, or supporting russians through opposing putin. Calling it paternalistic is fine, though, I often think I know what is best for people better than they themselves do (of course, self determination is a significant quality in its own). | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25133 Posts
On April 24 2024 15:18 Sermokala wrote: Yeah the bigotry isn't the issue it's people pointing out the bigotry that's the issue. You can safely ignore people without power because we don't respect them or what they say but the people we do think have value should know better than call out bad actors. It fully depends on what bigotry is being pointed out to begin with to be fair. Over in the UK there were pro-Palestine protests absolutely chock full of anti-Semitism (and plenty without), but the reporting surrounding them that I read/watched was full of absolutely blatant examples of it. Perhaps I suck at Googling but articles I’ve been looking up about this topic as per the college protests are completely lacking that element. If anyone does have reporting that ticks that box I’d be very much obliged. Having attended pro-Palestine events over here, yeah I’ve seen stuff I’d consider anti-Semitic. A few people out of hundreds but it was there, and I feel it was a collective failure of the attendees, myself included not to challenge that. | ||
| ||
