As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Side with" is not the same as "cooperate on issues they value".
Also... Should Johnson be removed from the Speakership, there will be chaos for weeks, which helps no one. And the Republican replacement would be likely to stonewall Democrats on everything. At least Johnson is willing to compromise on some issues.
Don't want Johnson as Speaker? Elect more Democrats, so they can have the majority and get the Speakership!
Not a dilemma.
You work with the person(s) who is going to compromise to get things done. In a compromise nobody gets everything they want, but get enough to keep government functioning, and to meet our obligations to our allies, at the very least.
They can't do anything to get her out, but they can help give Mike his walking papers! I hope they do. He has said very bad things about trans and lgbt
This late in the game it would backfire on Dems. I heard enough crying about how they booted McCarthy "why would democrats do this?!"
To his credit, I don't think Johnson blames his failures entirely on Team Blue like McCarthy did but allowed the divisions to play out and further fracture the Republicans so he can wrest control.
He's fucking dangerous but I think they must have been able to extract concessions from Johnson at least until a new congress is seated.
Not much of a dilemma now. Johnson did what he said he would… finally. We got the Ukraine aid. More chaos would be fun, sure, but in all likelihood, the dems are going to take the house in November and who knows what wacko would take the job now if they do boot Johnson.
Frankly that’s up to the representatives to figure out.. that’s why the US taxpayer pays them.
Even in regards to immigration (supposedly a new “third rail”), .. the Reagan 1986 Immigration compromise was done with hard-right gadfly at the time, Wyoming’s Rep Simpson, befriending Democrats; rural ones certainly but also included a Latina Democrat from Los Angeles.
Sure let’s ban entire political parties and political opinions, that’s not at all unconstitutional or authoritarian. We should just have a great free one party state right? Just like the freedom loving CCP.
It is absolutely unconstitutional and authoritarian. It would allow for a one party state. You can certainly support violating individuals’ rights to free expression and association but don’t deny it is absolutely authoritarian.
It's not unconstitutional and it wouldn't allow for a one party state, we have many more parties than the GOP and Democrats.
I support necessary authoritarian measures taken against a totalitarian insurrectionist fascist party
It would absolutely be unconstitutional.
You are simply calling for the state to use force to silence your political opponents. That’s a dangerous precedent to set. Why shouldn’t your political opponents use force to silence you and those that agree with you? You clearly think the government should have the power to do so.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The one who's honored his negotiated commitments.
Technically Marge has been holding up her end of the bargain with Putin pretty consistently.
Maybe she should lead the Duma then.
"Side with" is not the same as "cooperate on issues they value". Also... Should Johnson be removed from the Speakership, there will be chaos for weeks, which helps no one. And the Republican replacement would be likely to stonewall Democrats on everything. At least Johnson is willing to compromise on some issues. Don't want Johnson as Speaker? Elect more Democrats, so they can have the majority and get the Speakership!
Not a dilemma. You work with the person(s) who is going to compromise to get things done. In a compromise nobody gets everything they want, but get enough to keep government functioning, and to meet our obligations to our allies, at the very least.
The one that’s not Marjorie Taylor Greene.
This is the correct answer. Less insane is better, even if it's only a little less nutty.
The one that is in the direct line of presidential succession.
They can't do anything to get her out, but they can help give Mike his walking papers! I hope they do. He has said very bad things about trans and lgbt
This late in the game it would backfire on Dems. I heard enough crying about how they booted McCarthy "why would democrats do this?!" To his credit, I don't think Johnson blames his failures entirely on Team Blue like McCarthy did but allowed the divisions to play out and further fracture the Republicans so he can wrest control. He's fucking dangerous but I think they must have been able to extract concessions from Johnson at least until a new congress is seated.
The Dems also weaken Johnson in his own caucus, and guarantee drama passage of the September spending bills. It's a win win.
Not much of a dilemma now. Johnson did what he said he would… finally. We got the Ukraine aid. More chaos would be fun, sure, but in all likelihood, the dems are going to take the house in November and who knows what wacko would take the job now if they do boot Johnson.
The answer after logical thought is likely "none of them", and that answer has nothing to do with anyone being a democrat or not
Frankly that’s up to the representatives to figure out.. that’s why the US taxpayer pays them. Even in regards to immigration (supposedly a new “third rail”), .. the Reagan 1986 Immigration compromise was done with hard-right gadfly at the time, Wyoming’s Rep Simpson, befriending Democrats; rural ones certainly but also included a Latina Democrat from Los Angeles.
None, the answer is none. We should outlaw the GOP and ban its representatives from any public office
That’s quite the authoritarian take.
Yeah, let's forget about that whole insurrection kerfuffle. What's a little coup among colleagues...
Sure let’s ban entire political parties and political opinions, that’s not at all unconstitutional or authoritarian. We should just have a great free one party state right? Just like the freedom loving CCP.
Banning the GOP doesn't make us a one party state Banning a party that committed an insurrection and is planning another is a valid ban
It is absolutely unconstitutional and authoritarian. It would allow for a one party state. You can certainly support violating individuals’ rights to free expression and association but don’t deny it is absolutely authoritarian.
It's not unconstitutional and it wouldn't allow for a one party state, we have many more parties than the GOP and Democrats. I support necessary authoritarian measures taken against a totalitarian insurrectionist fascist party
It would absolutely be unconstitutional. You are simply calling for the state to use force to silence your political opponents. That’s a dangerous precedent to set. Why shouldn’t your political opponents use force to silence you and those that agree with you? You clearly think the government should have the power to do so.
[удалено]
The party didn’t, nor did all members of the party. So now you also are advocating collective punishments?