1323
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Republicans have at long last elected a House speaker: Representative Mike Johnson, a fundamentalist Christian who was also once called a key “architect” in Congress’s efforts to overthrow the 2020 election.

Johnson finally secured the speaker’s gavel after Republican infighting left the House without a speaker for 22 days. He secured 220 votes.

Johnson is a four-term congressman representing Louisiana. His win also represents the rise of the MAGA front in the Republican Party. Earlier Wednesday morning, Donald Trump endorsed Johnson as House speaker—after quickly killing Mike Emmer’s nomination the day before.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TheMightyCanuck@sh.itjust.works 109 points 9 months ago

This mf is third in line for the US presidency?

Please tell me I'm wrong. I hope I'm fucking wrong. Wtf America

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 90 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Please tell me I’m wrong. I hope I’m fucking wrong. Wtf America

Do you want the good news or the bad news first?

I'll start with the good news first

You're wrong. He's not third in line for the US presidency.

The bad news is

He's second. VP -> Speaker

[-] KvasiroftheWoods@lemmy.ml 17 points 9 months ago

Oh great, what's the real good news? Anything? Anything? /sadsack

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

I got into wine about a month ago and wish I had sooner. It really isn't as expensive as I thought it would be. I can buy a bottle of stuff I and my wife enjoy for about 20 bucks.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

You might enjoy the app Vivino. It lets you scan wines with your phone and see ratings and notes about it.

It's made finding great wines less of a gamble when wanting to try something new.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Thanks! The guy at my local wine store suggested that one as well. I will definitely check it out.

I am not going to be like those guys spitting into buckets with bottles too expensive to open. I am going buy a bottle each week and me and my wife will enjoy it together. Then we will try something new the next week. Also I want to learn how to pair it with food and occasions.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Sorry, no good news other than he was wrong as hoped.

[-] elscallr@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

It would require two people to either die or resign. Granted the President is like 130 and the Presidency ages you in dog years so the likelihood he dies in office is higher than most. But then there's a healthy Kamala Harris next up who gets to pick her own VP, who would then become first in line.

While I disagree with Kamala Harris on pretty much everything and don't think she would make a good President, she'd be a lot better than this wanker.

The down side is it does position him high in the Republican Party making him a presumptive front runner unless another option emerges.

He and the Republican conference look so ridiculous that it will diminish the Republicans' election chances in 2024. Voters don't want abortion to be banned and feel iffy about January 6th, so there's a strong chance that 2024 will be dismal for Republicans.

[-] ricdeh@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

So all the Republicans would have to do is assassinate the President and they have their own puppet in the office to sabotage the nation?

[-] yetAnotherUser@feddit.de 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No, second-in-line means there's one person before them: the Vice President

[-] JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago

Funny how first in line and second in line sound sort of like the same spot to me

[-] stillwater@lemm.ee 19 points 9 months ago

America elected the fucking Republicans to House majority. They chose this.

[-] Esqplorer@lemmy.zip 41 points 9 months ago

Every single state is gerrymandered to all hell. No we didn't.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

California isn't. We have an independent third party organization that draws the districts.

Heck Massachusetts is actually gerrymandered to hell and gone, but that's just because of the Dems sense of fair play. They made sure that the Republicans have a single district that they have a shot at winning. Gerrymandering isn't always a bad thing. It's just always a bad thing when Republicans are doing it.

Gerrymandering is a bad thing in a fair democratic system with political parties that believe in democracies. When one of the parties doesn't believe in democratic principles, it is good to remove them from power, and gerrymandering towards the Democrats has that effect.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

They didn't gerrymander towards the Democrats anywhere. Massachusetts was gerrymandered by Democrats for Republicans. Without the gerrymandering, the Republicans wouldn't win an election anywhere in Massachusetts.

this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
1323 points (98.0% liked)

politics

18586 readers
4291 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.
  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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS