"The House was in session at the Capitol on Thursday, but thanks to the latest procession of Republicans reporting for duty in front of a Manhattan criminal courthouse to show support for former President Donald J. Trump at his trial, the party risked ceding its control of the floor,” the New York Times reports.

“Almost a dozen House Republicans showed up at the courthouse on Thursday…”

“Republicans control the House by such a slim margin, 217-213, that just two defections can sink legislation if all members are present and voting — and just a few absences can erase their majority altogether. The show of support for Mr. Trump from such a large group of members meant that for much of Thursday, the G.O.P. may have handed the floor over to Democrats, leaving themselves exposed on the House floor.”

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 81 points 2 years ago

I'd like to see the flight expense claims from these House Repubs and whether taxpayers are funding their trips to kiss the ring in Manhattan.

  • source
  • [–] 70 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with these people? You go from being the "law and order" party to being the party of one of the biggest con men of the past century.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    So now you know they were never actually a "law and order" party, just as they've never actually been a "fiscal responsibility" or "liberties and freedoms" party. These are just words they say to their base when it is convenient.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    God I hate that we treat politics like sports teams now.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 68 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (16 children)
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The referees are on Trump's side.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (15 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    People should take you seriously when Democrats start wearing diapers to support Biden.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I have nothing reversed.

    The poster I replied to was both-sidesing. I pointed out that when Biden supporters wear diapers in support of Biden (the same way Trump supporters wear diapers) then he'd have a point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    They know the Democrats don't have the balls to try and sneak legislative actions by when they're not there. They're too focused on decorum and wanting a strong Republican party to undermine the Republicans.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    "Sneak" is a loaded term. I think what you mean is "do their job like they're supposed to and vote like they usually would." It's not like they're holding a secret/special session under the Republicans noses. They're just at work when they're supposed to be and others aren't. The alternative to "sneaking" legislative action in this case is just not doing their jobs for the day because a bunch of people decided not to show up. 12 people don't show up, so they send the other 400+ home for the day? Is that the moral expectation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Good call. I fell for the trap I was upset about, it's literally just their job, but they won't do it the same way they didn't want to confirm judges near the end of Barrys second term.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This was not about being scared and more of a social contract

    They would not select judges on the end of a presidents turn, based on the trust that the other party wouldn't either

    As soon as one party stops holding to this unwritten agreement (as Republicans did under Trump), there is little to no incentive for the other party to continue abiding to it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Im sorry but "I made a tacit verbal agreement about choices that deeply shape the law of the entire country with an untrustworthy group of people who went on to break it when everyone was warning they would break it" isn't better. In fact that changes the narrative from 'Dems being too stuck to principles to make the right choice' to 'Dems are simply not intelligent enough to make the right choice', and either way they got played.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    "Republicans dickride Trump at his trial"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago

    I can’t think of a better location for an asteroid to strike.

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago

    The Democratic Party should have legislation ready to go in just such a scenario.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Ok. That seems academic at best. With Mike Johnson as speaker, what would the dems be able to do to capitalize on their temporary majority? The Speaker would just refuse to hold a vote.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago*

    It looks like there is a work around for that, but it involves the Rules Committee, which is typically appointed by the Speaker. So, yeah, not possible, outside of some exceptions that I'm not sure I understand well enough to explain. Something about things that are "privileged".

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    I thought that this is why they put the FART team in place, to guard the floor. Clearly they've weakened the FART, but as we all know, you should never trust a weak FART.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    Please go support the Trumpster more often. Thanks.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    They should oust Mike Johnson, and make Hakeem Jefferies the Speaker and change the rules so it requires a majority of democrats to oust him.

  • source
  • [–] [B] 2 points 2 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The House was in session at the Capitol on Thursday, but thanks to the latest procession of Republicans reporting for duty in front of a Manhattan criminal courthouse to show support for former President Donald J. Trump at his trial, the party risked ceding its control of the floor.

    House Republicans had a vote scheduled for Thursday afternoon to rebuke President Biden for his decision to pause an arms shipment to Israel and compel his administration to quickly deliver weapons.

    Democratic leaders in the House had advised their members to vote “no,” calling the measure “another partisan stunt by Extreme MAGA Republicans who are determined to hurt President Biden politically.”

    The group that showed up in Manhattan on Thursday was composed of lawmakers who rarely shy from disrupting legislative business in the Capitol or embarrassing the party on the House floor.

    The Oversight Committee postponed a meeting scheduled for Thursday morning to vote on holding Merrick B. Garland, the attorney general, in contempt of Congress, rescheduling it for 8 p.m.

    With five of the panel’s members — Representatives Andy Biggs of Arizona, Michael Cloud of Texas, Mike Waltz of Florida, Ms. Boebert and Ms. Luna — in Manhattan, the G.O.P.


    The original article contains 728 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›