They work six months out of the year for six figures and they get to go home early, what a country
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
367 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30243 readers
2189 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
America has voted to allow this for decades. Too late to bitch about it now.
Can't we just get them all together and false flag the entire area? Like some huge political thing where most of the established politicians who have been politicking for decades get together for politics or cannibalistic child rape or whatever else they do.... and then we make it 'splode.
We could blame it on Iran. They'd probably be willing to take the credit, and that could really bring our countries closer together. We'd nominate them for all of the peace prizes.
Theyll make sure to pick someone really rancid as their designated survivor.
No Kiefer Sutherlands here.
Reminds me of Eric Cartman. "Screw you guys. I'm going home."
When Trump refused to sign the Housing Bill, a lot of people expected Johnson to adjourn the house to avoid it becoming law. This is on-brand for him.
The worst Speaker in a generation, at least.
agreed, and that's a hard record to beat what with Hastert still being alive
There really needs to be some way for the minority party to step in and do the work if the majority cannot function.
In Canada we call an election.
The problem is that the American system isn't parliamentary. There isn't a button to push to reset Congress.
Well, you might say that is one of the problems.
Well, there might be one button...
Or some form of trigger.
0000 0000 dammit!
0000 0001 dammit!
0000...
4545 4545 oh shit
You got it right the first time unless they've changed the codes since the cold war
i'd think they changed it after it became public knowledge that you could launch nukes by mashing 0 a lot (that is putting way more faith in government than it deserves, i know), and i used the style of hacking called "guess what that dipshit would put in as his password"
Like in a bowling alley, when the ball doesn't trip the sensor and the pins don't reset...canada has that for government?
I want one!
Pretty much. If the current party in power is not able to gain sufficient support for confidence motions (there are a number of things that qualify as a confidence motion, the budget being a big one) Then the Governor General (the official representative of the King / Queen) can offer control to another party if they ARE able to gather that support, or simply call an election.
Technically the (currently King) is our head of state, but for most functions our Prime Minister fills that role. The current government losing confidence of parliament is one of the functions where the King still holds de facto power in addition to de jure power.
Note that while they are titles held by the same person, the titles of King of Canada and King of the United Kingdom are legally distinct, and while referring to his role in Canadian governance, it is appropriate to refer to Charles III as King of Canada specifically, and inappropriate to use his other titles in that context. Mostly because the King of the United Kingdom has no role in our government, but the King of Canada does.
canada chucks another ball down the lane?
(is joke i know you press the button and wait for the employee to walk down the gutters and kick the pin resetter and then run away because kicking pin resetters has killed a lot of people but it's how you get them to work)
It's called a "confidence vote". It's not every bill, and I forget what makes it confidential, but if budgets and big things don't get passed parliament has no confidence in the government and an election happens. The two states of governance are A: a majority government where the ruling party has enough votes to pass anything they like. And B: a minority government that would have to make concessions and entice the other parties to vote with them. Minority governments are better IMO because they theoretically represent more people.
Iirc, it's when the governing party proposes a bill and it fails to pass, it triggers a vote of confidence, and if that vote goes against them, then there's an election. Or the governing party can ask the governer general (represents the king... Yeah, I know) to call an election.
load more comments
(11 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
They can oust the speaker with a very small number of defections that would achieve a majority. There's no motivation for the minority factions within the majority to do so though - the only chance they have of passing their hardline agenda is by refusing to give the majority the ability to do anything. This isn't a problem if you have a much larger majority but they're barely holding onto the title right now.
Unfortunately, the rebels are on the far right. They may vote to oust Johnson, but they’ll never vote to give Jeffries or any other Democrat the speakership. We’d be back in the endless cycle of Speaker votes that brought Johnson into power.
Are there any examples of the majority party electing a Speaker from the opposing party?
Seems like a given that they wouldn't vote for Jeffries
The closest example seems to be Nathaniel Banks, in 1855. He was in the Know-Nothing party, which was a smaller third party of the time.
load more comments
(3 replies)
There is. They can find enough willing defectors from the majority faction to become the majority themselves, vacate the chair and install someone else as speaker. If you're talking about a way for the minority to seize control of the chamber against the will of the majority, well, I challenge you to find a way to describe the rules for how that should work in a way that isn't easily gameable.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Honestly... Well regulated state militias were supposed to exist for a reason. The founding fathers weren't able to see the technology of the future but they were able to see the oppression of the future. They wrote the Constitution with their terms at their time. Modern politicians have chosen to abandon most aspects of the Constitution. But they were in there for a reason.
The founding fathers envisioned that every state, every community, any brotherhood or fellowship of men and or women would have a standing army that they could summon anytime to stop federal overreach, as well as the overreach of the corrupt and shiftless. that is the entire purpose of the second amendment.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I swear he does this biweekly
He was picked precisely because he's a spineless, vulnerable back bencher.
He doesn't fundraise well enough to threaten party members with money. He doesn't have a large popular base of support within the public. And he doesn't even play well with the billionaire class to get Elon Musk to yell at people for him.
The only reason he hasn't been tossed out like Paul Ryan or Kevin McCarthy is because there's nobody to replace him.
i suppose this is when the bipartisan housing bill that dipshit refused to sign gets vetoed.
Too bad they got the master surveillance and internet censorship bipartisan Bill through before this happened
Priorities, naturally. And the very very very first thing they ever did was a tax cut for billionaires...
Absolute scumbags.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
CNN was purchased by the Ellison family (along with CBS), you think they are still a trusted news source?
What are your specific concerns about the article?
Being aware of bias and potential concerns about accuracy is good, but it's not just some catch-all thing where you dismiss something entirely because it may be biased or because you have this broad notion that it's untrustworthy. That just leads to either a) total hypocrisy or b) being forced to dismiss everything, because everything is biased. And trust is something that you always have to test and reaffirm. Sources are trustworthy because they continue to pass those tests.
Noting the bias of the source is just step one. If you're not willing to do the rest of the steps then you're not actually contributing anything.
I'm expecting that CNN is going through or will go through an overhaul that shifts their editorial stance to the right similar to what happened at CBS. Right after the acquisition CBS cancelled their segment on El Salvador's CECOT prison and then fired the correspondent responsible for it. Bari Weiss has no broadcast journalism experience and is firing correspondents including Scott Pelley and dozens of others. They shuttered their radio division. The Ellisons are not just involved in business and media. They are supplying Israel with computer systems that are being used against Gaza and Lebanon- they are using an AI targeting system to kill people and destroy vital infrastructure like hospitals and schools.
All of the playbooks to take over and control a society involve controlling the media. This isn't a trivial matter and it's happening. So yeah I asked if people see any changes happening at CNN yet.
I'm expecting exactly the same thing. But we don't assume that reality conforms to our expectations. We assess. We judge. We use fact based examinations of empirical evidence
Dismissing the validity of a piece of reporting because you have a vague feeling about the source is how MAGA got where they are. We can do better than that.
Even a source like Fox News can produce good - or at least useful - reporting from time to time.
I didn't dismiss the validity of the article. I was actually asking people if they'd seen changes at CNN yet. I think it's hard to read tone through text. I can see how you might think I was asking people if they "think they are still a trusted news source" rhetorically but I was actually seeking information. Maybe comments isn't perfect place for discussion of the news outlet
GOP have really shown us how well they don’t know how to govern effectively.
It isn’t as much as not knowing how to govern as much as they just don’t want to. They are managing a power shift away from those that do. Only there to grab power and if they can also fit some grift in they will.
I keep forgetting that Johnson isn't even the most extreme of them. He's still a giant weasel.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›