Sounds incredibly difficult to reign in a party that is only united in one thing. Opposing the democrats. Ideologically they have no unifying belief other than 'democrats bad.' Add to it each one of them is (not so) secretly vying for their own personal gain. It's a wonder anything gets done with these nobs leaching off the system.
Exactly. They have no plan to fall on beside using Democrats as the boogie man. I found only one of them with a back boned and went on air saying that he would never vote for someone that has been saying the election was stolen. Sadly he will likely be voted out next year for being honest.
This is the real kicker here. It's all just theatre to keep attention on themselves while they gridlock the House from doing any meaningful work. Then they'll use it as an excuse to say Dems can't get anything done.
Remember when Obama chastised his Republican Congress for failing to pass the yearly roads bill? Because they didn't want him to get a "win" by signing it? Boy howdy! Glad those crazy times are past us!
When the senate is 50/50 they come to compromise favoring the party who has the white house/vp/tie breaking vote.
When the house is effectively 50/50 they apparently shut the government down for weeks on end.
The country voted 49/47 for Democrats so we will all held hostage while the minority figures out who their leader is? Even if their new leader was so great bills would have to pass the Senate (where the minority generally thinks they are too extreme) and the white house where again the opposition controls that part of the government.
Wow that would be something, breaking up of the GOP. Dems could rule with stable majority for next 20 years - except they would surely fuck it up somehow.
I don't know that I would get too excited about a small, but growing, fascist movement forming its own party. Seems we've seen that one before, didn't seem to work out great.
And I can't believe I'm saying this but I'm glad that they're holding out. The less they're touching legislation like a bunch of conniving molesters by abusing their majority, the better.
That's their goal. Paralyze congress, prevent funding bills and critical legislation from even being voted on, and then go to their voters and blame their failures on the "non-cooperative" democrats.
Here's the thing. The job of a Congress member is to create compromise and work for all the people. If they can't work the most basic part of the job, what good are they?
So in 250+ years this has never happened, but you're totally cool with it because it jives with some misconception you have about what's really going on? The real reason this is happening is that the Republicans, through gerrymandering and collective cowardice, have allowed themselves to be taken over by a crazed nihilistic extremist minority. It's not about different opinions.
Doubly so when you realize "fall in line" has been their mantra for the past 30 years and the straw that broke that camels back was checks notes bipartisanship...
Not very quickly. How many of them are multimillionaires? Go ahead, guess. Here's a hint.
More than half of those in Congress are millionaires, data from lawmakers’ most recent personal financial disclosures shows. The median net worth of members of Congress who filed disclosures last year is just over $1 million.
They won't care if they miss a year's worth of paychecks if they can hurt poor people by doing so.
Does Congress still get paid during a government shutdown that they themselves cause? I wouldn't be surprised, they seem to make a lot of rules that make themselves the exemption.
Yes. It partially makes sense because you could screw the new congresspeople who aren't corrupt with hidden income sources into not being able to afford their living situation, which could become a really bad point of leverage for awful people. I believe their staff goes without pay though.
Good thing the Republicans have a long history of bi-partisan cooperation in the interest of a smoothly functioning government, and thus have built up a reserve of good will they can call upon to help resolve this dilemma, right?
when we talk policies this argument has some merit, but we are talking fundamental proceedings to enable the parliament to be able to work at all.
if a party cannot get this straight and its members to compromise for that,then this harms democracy much more. It paralyzes and ultimately delegitimizesdemocracy as a form of government,which is precisely what the MAGA hats want.
I disagree. I think the whole situation will force Republicans to work with Democrats because now that there's 3 "parties," there will have to be more compromises.
Only there are no three parties, but two. Any republican who deviates from that will soon find no more support from his party for the next election cycle.
The ones holding up the process aren't really siding with Democrats, they're just against theit own party's nominees for various reasons. It's an important distinction.
It may not be your intention, but this comment feels like it's blaming Democrats for not going along when Republicans have the majority and keep failing to put someone up that they can all agree on. Several Republicans have been pushing the narrative that Democrats are to blame for their own party's disfunction.