381
all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] baronvonj@lemmy.world 154 points 1 year ago

What, she hasn't been handy enough in session?

[-] ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago

She was handy, but it was in a crowded theater.

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 39 points 1 year ago

They don’t ever bring the lights down low enough, I suppose.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

It's hard to pick just one when you're surrounded by dicks....

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago
[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Middle out!

[-] swab148@startrek.website 18 points 1 year ago

I bet she thinks all the other Republicans are just boobs!

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 125 points 1 year ago

"Too late. You blew it. It's going to be very difficult for you to recover from this. You betrayed your base," raged X user Mark Watson who then began promoting Trump for speaker.

So random voters.

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 66 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, the hot take from checks notes

X user Mark Watson.

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 21 points 1 year ago

You say that like all the magas aren’t going to groupthink themselves into some kind of frenzy and boycott something.

[-] charliespider@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

and boycott something

Like rational thought?

[-] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 year ago

Can't boycott something they don't subscribe to in the first place

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago

oh yeah? when has that stopped them?

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Can’t boycott something you can’t do.

Like how I can’t boycott flying on private jets.

[-] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Rainbow coors can when?

[-] Steeve@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

What does ~~Ja Rule~~ Mark Watson think of all this?

[-] bus_factor@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago

Not necessarily even voters. A bunch of the Jan 6th loonies didn't even vote before throwing a hissy fit over the results. Some of the loudest ones are too busy screaming to make it to the polls.

Plenty of others do vote, though, so you should too.

[-] mateomaui@reddthat.com 23 points 1 year ago

Remember how she barely got by in the last election?

[-] crawley@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

It was like 600 votes, too. Heartbreaking.

[-] spider@lemmy.nz 10 points 1 year ago

You betrayed your base

There are degrees of lunacy, you see.

[-] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

All serious…what is the likelihood someone puts up trump for speaker and basically sets up a loyalty test? Remember…no one in the GOP house wants the title

Since the constitution doesn’t specify the speaker needs to be a house member or any member of government, Technically he could be nominated and this is a way for him to be an unelected member in the federal government only 3 positions away from the presidency. In this position, all he would need to do is get Biden and Harris removed through impeachment or (knowing him) any means necessary and he’s unelected president.

EDIT: yep two members of the house have publicly said they want trump for speaker. So what’s the likelihood that this will happen?

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 1 points 1 year ago

I believe one of his boot lickers entered his name for each of the 15 votes it took McCarthy to win previously. MTG was already saying she was going to do it again.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 48 points 1 year ago

That article reads like a high school journalism second page story

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

That might reach her voters better. Maybe they should do a story about the handie next

[-] PurpleTentacle@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

Dear ~~Penthouse~~ RawStory, ...

[-] 1847953620@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Maybe start handing out handies, might be a better strategy

[-] kinther@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

For fucks sake... stop citing X/Twitter users as if they represent the majority of US citizens. I can't stand this shit.

[-] Octavio@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Say what you want about Boebert, but at least she’s not afraid to roll up her sleeves and really get her hands in there.

[-] Fixbeat@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

Sounds like the jackals are starting to eat their babies. aw

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

You blew it

Well, she didn't get that far before she was kicked out.

this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
381 points (89.6% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4432 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS