The House republicans couldn’t even do one good thing lol

10 points

Congress rarely expels members before they have been found guilty.

permalink
report
reply
15 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Resigning and explosion are two separate things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

I wasn’t aware exploding Santos was an option. Does congress know?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I assume you meant “expulsion”, or I’m really missing out on something interesting…

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Freudian ‘Guy Fawkes’ slip.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yes, but Democrats have standards for Democrats. A Republican that is so shitty that even Republicans reject him is wonderful. Make the conservatives keep him as long as possible. Let the world watch as they squirm to defend him when they can’t just replace him.

Fuck conservatives. Let them sleep in the bed they make.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Greene brought up this reason. Of course, she might have been the wrong spokesperson for “we can’t punish a person until they’ve been found guilty in a court of law” given that she filed articles of impeachment against President Biden on his first day in office for crimes she claimed that he committed as President. You know, within the first hour or two (and ignoring that she obviously wrote these out long before he took the oath of office).

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Greene is stupid and didn’t submit this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The effort to kick Santos out of the House was led by his fellow New York Republicans, who are anxious to distance themselves from a colleague infamous for fabricating his life story and accused of stealing from donors, lying to Congress and receiving unemployment benefits he did not deserve.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rep. George Santos faces a vote Wednesday evening to expel him from the House as part of an effort led by fellow New York Republicans who are anxious to distance themselves from a colleague infamous for fabricating his life story and accused of stealing from donors, lying to Congress and receiving unemployment benefits he did not deserve.

Johnson, R-La., also recently told Fox News that if Congress is going to expel members because they are charged with a crime or accused of wrongdoing, “that’s a problem.”

On one side, Republican Reps. Anthony D’Esposito, Nick LaLota and Mike Lawler laid out their case for expelling Santos.

Santos has said expelling him before he is formally charged and found guilty would create a new precedent in this body, one that could have negative consequences for generations,” LaLota said.

We have due process in America,” said GOP Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who opposes the expulsion resolution.


The original article contains 1,203 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

permalink
report
reply
108 points

Remember, Republicans are all bad people.

permalink
report
reply
45 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Blue dogs, AKA, Republicans stealing a blue seat.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

DINOs

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

They are probably dirty AF too and probably need to go.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

Or, and hear me out here, they heard that the investigative committee was set to release their findings in 2 weeks, and wanted that process to work itself out first.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

It’s a good thing lying isn’t against the bible!

permalink
report
reply
34 points

This is why I keep telling people we can’t pass an Amendment to do things like change gun control.

It starts with a 2/3rds majority in the House, 290 votes.

We couldn’t get 290 votes to agree on Santos’ obvious crimimal behavior, we’ll NEVER get it on something like the 2nd Amendment, or Supreme Court term limits, or anything else remotely useful.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Gun control doesn’t require repealing the 2nd amendment. Term limits for the Supreme Court might, but we can get most of the good of that by packing the Supreme Court to water down the influence of a single corrupt judge and to maybe even reevaluating allowing the Supreme Court to hold the authority of judicial review

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Packing the Supreme Court won’t work because the next President of the opposite party will just pack it the other direction. Joe knows this and it’s why he hasn’t attempted it.

Gun control very much requires an amendment based on the rulings from the Supreme Court since D.C. vs. Heller.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Packing the SCOTUS one time would be enough if they then immediately fix gerrymandering. That would prevent conservatives from winning a trifecta again that would allow them to re-pack the court.

If we do nothing, we admit defeat to the facists. Pack the fucking court to ruin the conservatives.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 15K

    Posts

  • 429K

    Comments