this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
484 points (99.8% liked)

politics

22605 readers
4239 users here now

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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

A GOP-led procedural vote in the House failed after nine Republicans joined Democrats, halting legislative action for the week.

The vote's collapse blocked Republican efforts to pass the No Rogue Rulings Act, aimed at limiting federal judges’ power, and the SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship to vote.

The failed rule also sought to derail a bipartisan resolution allowing proxy voting for new parents, led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna.

With the rule defeated, Speaker Mike Johnson canceled all remaining votes until Monday evening, stalling key GOP priorities.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 161 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Republican women in our house of Representatives are demanding maternity remote work for themselves. Twelve weeks. That's twelve weeks more than Americans get.

So they'll have time off with their babies. And still get paid. With their free taxpayer funded Healthcare.

Leading the charge was Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla. She was in the freedom caucus, who opposed giving special treatment to women. But Luna had a baby last year. So guess what's suddenly important to her now? She left the freedom caucus.

I fucking LOATHE Republicans. Their brains are broken that they can't imagine something unless it happens to them. They're too stupid or selfish, I'm not sure which. Pretty sure it's stupid.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 24 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Definitely stupid. Also selfish, but definitely stupid. I've met too many of these god damn people that just cannot fathom seeing the world from the perspective of anyone else.

[–] allidoislietomyself@lemmy.world 9 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I agree they are selfish but I'd be cautious assuming they are stupid. That is how we got where we are today. We assumed their stupidity and incompetence would be their undoing but the past 9 years have shown us that assumption was wrong.

It's not that they are stupid they just don't care about being a hypocrite.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago

I guess I should say emotionally stupid. That doesn't necessarily make them inherently stupid, but they just have a complete utter absence of emotional intelligence and do not care.

[–] Smokeless7048@lemmy.world 13 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

12 weeks is so crazy little. i got 8 weeks, as a father, and my wife took 78 weeks (at a reduced weekly pay)

[–] prongs@lemm.ee 18 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Babies have to learn to be self sufficient as early as 12 weeks so that they can enter the workforce and learn to be oppressed sooner.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 7 points 18 hours ago

They yearn for the mines, not the moms

load more comments (1 replies)

Twelve weeks. That's twelve weeks more than Americans get.

Paid is the important additional criteria in your statement. Fmla keeps your insurance running and guarantees 12 weeks off work unpaid for maternity leave(for people working more than the pittance that is 1250 hours a year)


something many Americans cannot afford.

[–] match@pawb.social 7 points 21 hours ago

that being said i am 100% in favor of new parents getting to at least work remotely in the House

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Australis13@fedia.io 131 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I'm not sure if this is Johnson acting immature and throwing a tantrum because the GOP couldn't get their way, or if he's buying time to make sure they can get the nine Republicans into line before trying again.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 108 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Definitely the latter. They don't want to risk anyone else defecting in the meantime after repeated failures that make them look bad, so they're looking for some other way to coerce the votes.

[–] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 59 points 1 day ago

Mob style, bribery and physical threats to your family and loved ones.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's just a rule they can't vote on it until Monday. Which was the original schedule until Anna Paulina Luna used the arcane rule to move it up. She probably did that because nobody comes to work on Mondays and she didn't think they'd have the votes. She worked with a Democrat to create the bill and had a baby just a few months after being elected. She left the Freedom Caucus over it.

The 9 Rs didn't like being pushed around.

Or, just maybe, some of them (plus her) are the ones that some of the more quietly persuasive Democrats need to be talking to off the floor....

Edit: Either way, I'm happy for anything that messes with the GOP pushing through their hate agenda. Delay, Deny, Defend us against tyranny!

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 6 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Hold on.. I'm having trouble unpacking this. Can you explain the math here? Did I read that this is all the result of internal GOP drama because someone had a baby?

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 9 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

There's a bit of "strange bedfellows" involved here. Two women, one D and one R, realized they and anyone like them could lose their opportunities to vote on legislation (ie do their job) if childbirth or neonatal complications kept them away from the Capitol Building. So they sponsored this bill.

Democrats like it because it makes the job fairer to women. I presume some of the Republicans feel it fits their pro-birth agenda, and helps against women's tendency to vote more left than their spouses.

They may also like the part that Johnson hates, which is that it opens a door to further proxy voting. Which he says is bad because legislators need to be in the same building interacting with each other, (which we can all see isn't doing shit for bipartisanship) but mostly that rule is used for partisan gamesmanship, timing votes according to who will be present. He doesn't want to have to learn how to work with a change in the rules.

Three bills got linked together as part of his shenanigans, so now all three are stuck until at least Monday.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 58 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

A GOP-led procedural vote in the House failed after nine Republicans joined Democrats

Pog

I'm gonna start keeping track of who from each party is actually resisting

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 11 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

This wasn't a partisan issue. It was literally just letting new mothers vote.

I'll call it resisting if the American people have consequences

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 13 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Those voter ID laws would have been the death knell for democracy, as they were in the Jim Crow South. Stopping them had incalculable benefits for the American people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Microw@lemm.ee 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

resolution to allow members who give birth or lawmakers whose spouses give birth to have another member vote for them for 12 weeks.

Well that sounds like a stupid proposition. The "other member" could simply use their second vote to vote however they want in absence of the lawmaker with a newborn. Surely there are better ways to handle this.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] KingOogaBooga@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Geez I wish I could just stop working when I don't agree wit my coworkers.

[–] GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 18 points 23 hours ago

I quit a job after a coworker started yelling and screaming because I was told to go help them. I said I couldn't work with them anymore.My manager said, "well you can't pick who you work with." So I turned in my shit ans left the next day. You actually can pick who you work with.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] foxlore@programming.dev 6 points 1 day ago

You just might not be able to start again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 31 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Now accepting bets on when Trump dissolves Congress.

[–] The_Caretaker@lemm.ee 12 points 14 hours ago

You mean, when Musk dissolves congress?

[–] MiyamotoKnows@lemmy.world 29 points 23 hours ago

Good. Let's be honest here... When Republicans stop working America benefits.

[–] leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

Wonder when they'll start floating the idea of martial law.

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 28 points 20 hours ago

Their primary objective of Martial Law will be to suspend the mid-term elections, and they don't want to show that hand too early, and give it time to get through the courts.

So they'll wait until next summer, when the protests have grown huge, and the enraged citizens are on the warpath. They'll send in their RedHats to instigate violence, then send in armed authorities to quell the street violence with ferocious armed violence. That will be met with more violence, and the streets of American cities will look like Hong Kong.

Then they will use that as justification for Martial Law, and suspend elections until peace is restored, and since HitlerPig controls the peace that will never happen.

Next summer is going to be wild.

[–] AngrySquirrel@lemm.ee 9 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Well, the recommendation for martial law is supposed to come out by April 20th.

[–] pacology@lemmy.world 7 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

It will be a nice birthday present

[–] AngrySquirrel@lemm.ee 9 points 20 hours ago

It is also the birthday of president musk's idol

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago (4 children)
[–] PurpleSkull@lemm.ee 6 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

That's a Tekken character.

You're thinking of Martian law.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 17 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

probably hoping this a distraction from all the elon-wisconsin trumps shenangigan blows over.

[–] JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 5 hours ago

Nah, he's throwing a temper tantrum because of the nine that didn't fall in line.

[–] AntelopeRoom@lemm.ee 8 points 13 hours ago

They'll do something when it's about their own ability to work remotely. Otherwise, they do not give a fuck.

[–] lauha@lemmy.one 8 points 1 day ago (12 children)

As a non-USian, explain me the controversy of requiring proof of citizenship? Of course I have to show valid, government issued ID to vote. Can anyone just waltz in and vote willy-nilly? This makes no sense to me.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Basically they are targeting women, and trans people. Newly married women, and trans people would have ID that doesn't necessarily match either their birth certificate name, or their name recorded by the registrar of voters. Also, and this is the kicker, WE ALREADY HAVE THE LAWS THAT ARE NEEDED. They are fighting a made up issue that they made up.

To add to all of that, ID is getting somewhat prohibitive in costs. Here in CA it costs me $30 to renew my ID, not driver's license, every 6 or 8 years. That's not a major issue to me, but I do know people that absolutely could not afford it. It is annoying, since I got my first ID in '96 and that one only cost me $5.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Adjusting for inflation, that same ID should theoretically cost only $10 now.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Not entirely apples to oranges. I got my first ID in Indiana, I dunno what a license costs there at this point, but KY was at $15 back in 2016 when I left there.

[–] whiskeytango@lemm.ee 7 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

I think the bigger issue isn't even cost. Fuck, most people in CA can deal with $30 if the process was instant. Let's not pretend that's what stopping people

The real issue is taking the day off from work to wait your ass in DMV lines when you really rather just stay home in bed if you're gonna spend a day not grinding down to a mental break

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Government doesn't issue the ID for free, and needs to send it to a valid address. It's nothing more than an attempt to stop voters from voting. If they actually cared about preserving democracy, they would make the ID's free and easily accessible before requiring them to vote.

The more important issue is that it's not an issue. There are no indications that non-citizens or identity thieves have had any impact on federal elections. Voter fraud is simply not a problem, so new laws to stop voter fraud really only exist to stop voters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bleys@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (5 children)

It’s a fair question so idk why people are downvoting you. But in the US you can’t just walk in and vote (ID or not). Before the election you have to register to vote, and that process verifies that you are a citizen. Then once you go into your polling place to actually cast your vote, they check your name/address to see if you’ve been registered, and if you have, then you are allowed to vote.

So requiring ID to vote introduces a second step to check something that’s already been verified (you can’t register to vote if you aren’t a citizen), and Republicans love it because adding extra hoops to the voting process lowers turnout and historically Republicans do better in low voter turnout elections.

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 10 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

That still doesn't cover the need to verify that you are who you say you are.

If government issued IDs were free for everyone, this wouldn't be an issue. The issue isn't showing an ID to vote, it's that not everyone has one, and those who don't are usually lower income.

[–] Bleys@lemmy.world 12 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Actually checking the name and address against the voting registration record, without an additional ID check, really is enough to validate someone in like 99.999999% of cases. In order for someone to impersonate someone else while voting, they would need to:

-Know their name

-Know their address

-Know their designated polling place and physically visit it to cast a ballot

-And most importantly, they would need to know that the person they’re impersonating is not going to vote in that election. Because otherwise as soon as they do, it’s going to flag a voter fraud alert when one voter appears to be voting twice. Which is a federal crime that is taken very seriously and easy to track down, because it occurs so infrequently and there’s surveillance at every polling location

So an imposter would be risking federal prison time in order to swing an election by one vote. It’s something that happens like a single digit number of times per election.

Compare that to the hundreds or even thousands of times that people work 8+ hour days (since elections in the US are never on holidays), get to their polling place that closes as early as 6pm, and then find that they’ve forgot to bring or lost their ID, and then won’t or can’t vote in the election. The current system works fine, ID laws are 100% just a voter suppression tactic.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

I'll copy something I wrote up in another thread.

This is one of those things that needs some context. Lots of nations have ID requirements similar to this, and people from outside the United States are often confused as to why it’s a problem. The issue is that it’s a backdoor to voter disenfranchisement.

Not everyone drives, and therefore, doesn’t need a state-issued ID. But now you need one to vote. So you have to go to the DMV to get an ID that’s not a drivers license but functions the same way for ID purposes. Except the DMV is only open during working hours, has long lines, and the nearest one may not have public transportation going to it.

It’s often minorities who don’t have drivers licenses to begin with, and they tend to vote for Democrats.

In practice, there was never significant voter fraud at all. Not enough to change the outcome of any race. Even on the surface, it’s solving a non-problem.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 8 points 22 hours ago

It's hard to find the original Daily Show clip, but they show part of it here. It's the most vile fucking double think imaginable, saying "Hey, I'm not racist, I just want to disenfranchise minority and student voters who HAPPEN to be mostly democrats, and by the way, yeah, I'm actually pretty fucking racist." I'm just glad that the Daily Show got to interview a guy who was so lacking in self-awareness that he said it all out loud.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 11 points 21 hours ago

Of course I have to show valid, government issued ID to vote.

Let's talk about flying instead of voting.

What happens if you fly somewhere, have your wallet stolen, and have to fly home without an ID? Does your country have a procedure for dealing with this case?

The answer is pretty obviously yes. There are methods of confirming identification by other means, for issuing a new identification card quickly, etc.

With voting, the question isn't whether government issued IDs can be used to streamline identity verification. Every polling site uses and accepts IDs. The question is what happens when someone doesn't have their ID on them, or can't get to the polling place in person: is there a procedure that still allows them to vote somehow? Those are the alternative procedures being banned by legislation like this.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 6 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

it primarly is a voter suppression tactics, many people dont have a valid passport/expired, and often time minorities poc, lgbtq+ dont have one. you can say, go apply for a passport, its actually less convenient than getting a ID/LICENSE. first you have to "apply online" then make a appointment at specific postal locations and only in person, must call no online appointment scheduling. often times passport appointments are book weeks and months advance.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›