this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
570 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2598 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Republican Sen. James Lankford, who spent months negotiating the border provisions the GOP demanded, said he may vote against his own bill this week.

Senate Republicans on Monday signaled their plan to filibuster bipartisan legislation that paired tougher border policy with more U.S. aid to Ukraine, a stunning reversal less than 24 hours after the legislation had been unveiled.

With ex-president Donald Trump urging them to kill it, and many on the right up in arms about the proposal, top Senate Republicans emerged from a heated closed-door meeting and said they needed more time to review the agreement, suggesting that a scheduled Wednesday vote to advance the bill is all but doomed to fail.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Their bluff was called.

I wonder if anyone will tell the fauxbrained that the cons have no intent on proper governance. I bet if they could have kept SCOTUS from taking away human rights, they would have done that, too. They became the dog that caught the car on that, and they obviously don't want the same to happen with the border.

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

Ahh but whose bluff?

Republicans? Democrats?

Democrats are the ones that compromised for what represented the worst border policy possible. What did they gain for this?

Likewise with Republicans.

Clearly, yes, bluffs were called. But both parties come out worse imo.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

What did they gain for this?

The gain is not losing anything. It doesn't matter what the Dems conceded; if the bill doesn't pass then their concessions are irrelevant.

But it's worse for the GOP. They got lots of what they demanded, but aren't going to get those things because they won't support the bill. So not only do they not get what they want, but talking point of "The GOP denounced a bill for border security hours after supporting it, and after months of complaining about the border. Do they really want to fix it?" is so stupidly simple to understand.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The Right doesn't care about talking points, that's a Dem notion. The Right's base is compliant, and only seeks information from biased sources, who will never give an objective account. If they haven't seen the hypocrisy by now, they never will.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

The 30% deplorables, yes. But for better or worse, there's a group of voters who flip-flop every election for whatever reason- memory too short to remember what the GOP is like, or dissatisfaction with gas prices or food prices or whatever. That's the group that these political games are aimed at. They're too stupid to be against the GOP, but not so stupid you can't convince them to support the Dems long enough to sway an election.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 9 months ago

The gain is not losing anything. It doesn’t matter what the Dems conceded

Oh you sweet summer child..