210
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The White House reacted to House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) new stopgap funding bill Saturday, calling it “extreme.”

“This proposal is just a recipe for more Republican chaos and more shutdowns—full stop,” a statement from White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre read. “With just days left before an Extreme Republican Shutdown—and after shutting down Congress for three weeks after they ousted their own leader—House Republicans are wasting precious time with an unserious proposal that has been panned by members of both parties.”

“An Extreme Republican Shutdown would put critical national security and domestic priorities at risk, including by forcing service members to work without pay,” Jean-Pierre continued. “This comes just days after House Republicans were forced to pull two of their own extreme appropriations bills from the floor—further deepening their dysfunction.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 48 points 10 months ago

There are other conceivable sorts of disagreements that might cause a shut down, some much more reasonable. I think it’s fair to call this particular shutdown out for being the result of extremist elements in the Republican Party making absurd demands.

It’s so extreme that even most Republicans outside of the freedom caucus don’t seem to want a shutdown, to the point where the last speaker sacrificed his career to try to avoid one.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago

It’s so extreme that even most Republicans outside of the freedom caucus don’t seem to want a shutdown, to the point where the last speaker sacrificed his career to try to avoid one.

this is why we're fucked.

[-] spark947@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

God forbid they compromise with dems, rather than let 8 people stop everything.

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

Yeah agreed. One scary thing is that, even if some Republicans wanted to compromise, the political incentives are fucked. People get primaried out of their seat for much less than actively supporting the opposing party against one's own. The two party system is completely broken.

[-] spark947@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

Not a fault of the 2 party system. Democrats have no issues being the adults in the room. It's the Republican party that needs to be evaluated. False equivalency and all that.

They are losing elections like crazy, so I guess the system is working.

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago

Most Americans, including Republicans, do not want a shutdown, but the democratic mechanisms aren't functioning. There is absolutely a systemic problem with the incentives of a two party system in the US, in conjunction with a primary system where the diehards are much more likely to vote. It rewards extremism.

That said, it is also true that the Republican party is by far worse than Democrats. In fact, one explains the other. I am not claiming the parties are equivalent, so it is just uncharitable to accuse me of false equivalency.

[-] spark947@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

But it is really just 8 extreme republicans. 8 people shutting down everything. It's up to republicans in the house of representatives to boot these guys, even if it means siding with the dems. It's not partisanship. It's loyalty to 8 people.

this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
210 points (97.3% liked)

politics

18821 readers
4820 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS