Congress

[Strat]

They were all pretty much trumptards so....

[B]

They were all pretty much trumptards so....

Yeah, McCarthy, Jordan, Johnson, Scalise, and Emmer are all different flavors of the same anthesis to everything the Democrats stand for. Not one of them would have resulted in any different outcomes. I'm not even sure the Republicans care.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[B]

B, what exactly do the democrats stand for, in your estimation

I'll rephrase so we don't have to debate the morality or sincerity of individual people.

========================

Yeah, McCarthy, Jordan, Johnson, Scalise, and Emmer are all different flavors of the same anthesis to everything on the Democratic Party Platform. Not one of them would have resulted in any different outcomes. I'm not even sure the Republicans care.

[Bi_3]

B, what exactly do the democrats stand for, in your estimation

I'll rephrase so we don't have to debate the morality or sincerity of individual people.

========================

Yeah, McCarthy, Jordan, Johnson, Scalise, and Emmer are all different flavors of the same anthesis to everything on the Democratic Party Platform. Not one of them would have resulted in any different outcomes. I'm not even sure the Republicans care.

Maybe, but McCarthy isnt a fucking young earth creationist like the guy who is now third in line to the most powerful military in history.

[BurtReynolds]

Sounds intriguing. What is his position on the roundness of the earth?

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[simple schoolboy]

Can we get the media to poll all serving congressmen when the first time they heard of Dagestan was? Not a perfect litmus test, but if you're on the intelligence committee, we can be pretty sure you haven't read all your briefings.

[Bammer]

B, what exactly do the democrats stand for, in your estimation

I'll rephrase so we don't have to debate the morality or sincerity of individual people.

========================

Yeah, McCarthy, Jordan, Johnson, Scalise, and Emmer are all different flavors of the same anthesis to everything on the Democratic Party Platform. Not one of them would have resulted in any different outcomes. I'm not even sure the Republicans care.

Sorry, I'm not concerned with the semantics. I'm genuinely curious what you think constitutes a national platform for the Democrats.

As best as I can tell, there's broad consensus on the environment, healthcare, LGBTQ+, abortion, and maybe wages. But plenty of division on economic policy, criminal justice, guns, foreign policy, and education.

The GOP seems to have broad consensus on tax policy, 2A, and deregulation of business. Lots of division on immigration, LGBTQ+, abortion, infrastructure spending, and foreign military policy.

Painting either side of the House with broad strokes does a disservice to the people who stand to win/lose from the policies that make it through Congress.

If I didn’t know any better I’d say you are advocating for voters to learn about individual candidates and vote based on their personal stances rather than just vote D or R blindly down the ballot.

[E.H. Ruddock]

B, what exactly do the democrats stand for, in your estimation

I'll rephrase so we don't have to debate the morality or sincerity of individual people.

========================

Yeah, McCarthy, Jordan, Johnson, Scalise, and Emmer are all different flavors of the same anthesis to everything on the Democratic Party Platform. Not one of them would have resulted in any different outcomes. I'm not even sure the Republicans care.

Sorry, I'm not concerned with the semantics. I'm genuinely curious what you think constitutes a national platform for the Democrats.

As best as I can tell, there's broad consensus on the environment, healthcare, LGBTQ+, abortion, and maybe wages. But plenty of division on economic policy, criminal justice, guns, foreign policy, and education.

The GOP seems to have broad consensus on tax policy, 2A, and deregulation of business. Lots of division on immigration, LGBTQ+, abortion, infrastructure spending, and foreign military policy.

Painting either side of the House with broad strokes does a disservice to the people who stand to win/lose from the policies that make it through Congress.

If I didn’t know any better I’d say you are advocating for voters to learn about individual candidates and vote based on their personal stances rather than just vote D or R blindly down the ballot.

That’s all well and good until that individual candidate gets elected and proceeds to vote with their party only on issues

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[simple schoolboy]

Ro Khanna keeps racking up wins:

His district has a pretty big Afghan population and a large Indian population, so probably very fraught about the Gaza situation. At the end of the day, foreign policy is the Executive's purview, so burning political capital on a forward statement unlikely to impact anything seems like an unwise thing for Khanna to do. Also, his (former) staffer seems to have an understanding of their role backwards.

[Bammer]

B, what exactly do the democrats stand for, in your estimation

I'll rephrase so we don't have to debate the morality or sincerity of individual people.

========================

Yeah, McCarthy, Jordan, Johnson, Scalise, and Emmer are all different flavors of the same anthesis to everything on the Democratic Party Platform. Not one of them would have resulted in any different outcomes. I'm not even sure the Republicans care.

Sorry, I'm not concerned with the semantics. I'm genuinely curious what you think constitutes a national platform for the Democrats.

As best as I can tell, there's broad consensus on the environment, healthcare, LGBTQ+, abortion, and maybe wages. But plenty of division on economic policy, criminal justice, guns, foreign policy, and education.

The GOP seems to have broad consensus on tax policy, 2A, and deregulation of business. Lots of division on immigration, LGBTQ+, abortion, infrastructure spending, and foreign military policy.

Painting either side of the House with broad strokes does a disservice to the people who stand to win/lose from the policies that make it through Congress.

If I didn’t know any better I’d say you are advocating for voters to learn about individual candidates and vote based on their personal stances rather than just vote D or R blindly down the ballot.

That’s all well and good until that individual candidate gets elected and proceeds to vote with their party only on issues

I would never do that.

Vote for Bammer

[Peeps]

Ken Buck
Jeff Jackson
Jamie Raskin
Jared Mokowitz

i am sure there are a few others but not many who are legit members of congress who are trying to work for the people instead of building their brand

[Bi_3]

I love that the red team is all like "The new speaker doesn't have a 7-figure brokerage account, he's just like you!". Uhhh.... he was a big time lawyer for 15 years before living on a congressional salary since 2016. You're not supporting him with that talk, you're outing his financial fraud.

[Bi_3]

Money shot starts at 1:00

[E.H. Ruddock]

See ya, Santos, or whoever you are!

[The Argonaut]

Republican leadership voted not to expel, but didn't put in any effort to convince members to vote that way. I was interested in which way he would go, but Kevin McCarthy did not vote

[BurtReynolds]

What a character!

[BurtReynolds]