Politics

10182 readers

285 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

112

House Votes to Oust Kevin McCarthy as Speaker: Live Updates - The New York Times (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's not my point. See the edit.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I see your point. It's just kinda... Not true I think.

As I see it: They never wanted McCarthy anyway, he was too extreme for them from the beginning. They realized pretty soon that they would rather see him go then stay, since it would just be too difficult to get on board with his shenanigans. He was not being a Speaker of the House, the whole house, he was trying to be the lackey for the Republicans.

And using the shutdown as a way to pressure them was a republican thing. Not the Dems. The Dems just called their bluf. Which in the end.. turned out to be just that.

In the end, republicans are doing this to themselves, they are (rather) quickly destroying the party from within. Fascinating to see.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Thinking about it more... It would have been an interesting tactic of the Dems to "cooperate" with some more level headed Republicans and sideline the Chaos Caucus from having anymore influence. It could have had major impact on the effectiveness of the house going forward.

As I understand it, they actually tried this. Sort of. But McCarthy was very ANTI-DEMS towards it. So they voted the way they did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEj9pnkXei0

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think that's fair. My comment was a reaction to the opinion in the article that implied Dems enjoy the chaos for political advantage. As you probably understood, I don't like it if that was really the case.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Agreed, that would not be beneficial to anyone really. Basically a "shitty move".

Seems like Republicans really did not leave them any other option though.

Also: the reporting of the New York Times has really nose-dived in quality the last few years.