#PELOSI LOSES CONGRESS

[comeonamericawakeup]

Donald Trump appears to be "losing his marbles," said Michael Tomasky, so why isn't his obvious mental decline a bigger story? For months, Trump has been repeatedly referring to running against Barack Obama in 2016 and in 2024 and showing other disturbing signs of memory loss and incoherence. But he hit a startling new low last week while attacking GOP primary opponent Nikki Haley. At a rally in New Hampshire, he claimed Haley was "in charge of security" for the Capitol on Jan. 6 and was therefore at fault for the invasion of the building by MAGA followers. Huh? Haley was a private citizen in 2021; clearly, Trump was confusing her with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

This was no simple gaffe: Trump used Haley's name four times in trying to blame her for Jan. 6 - strong evidence he mixed up the two female adversaries "as people" in his mind. Haley, his Republican primary opponent, became Pelosi, his Democratic foil in Congress. If Joe Biden had made a comment this addled, "Fox News would be looping it nonstop."

Trump's revealing error got little attention except for some low-key coverage of Haley "questioning Trump's mental fitness for office." Trump is unfit for that office in so many ways - and now it's clear there's another.

THE WEEK February 2, 2024

[qqueenofhades]

took some time to rewatch some of the footage from Jan 6th and it gets me how we really were just one step away from the cliff edge

I mean.... yeah. We all knew it was bad at the time (I was texting with some friends on the morning of January 6, since we were braced for some kind of batfuckery to go down after Josh Hawlin' Ass announced his intention to object to the results in the Senate), and then it was just like... wait a second people have broken into the Capitol, what in the hell is going on, isn't there security, what is this, what the fuck. It was an anxious wait to see what the fuck was going to happen and/or if the police were going to get the rioters out of there, but I definitely didn't fully understand the gravity of what had gone on, even though we were all aware that an armed attack on the US Capitol in the name of overturning a lawful presidential election was a) very bad, and b) unprecedented in American history. I stayed up late that night to be sure that they would bring Congress back and certify the results, which they did, but also: Jesus Christ.

Everything that we've learned since has confirmed that this WAS a deadly serious attempted coup, and that while it failed, it was not due to lack of planning or effort on the bad guys' part. Trump was openly asking the DOJ and DHS and other high-level defense and security officials to do crazily illegal shit, declare martial law, seize voting machines, order a re-run of the election, etc etc. If they had just done what the president asked them, Jesus Christ knows where that would have taken us, and they get away with this shit because it has never happened before and nobody knows what to do, so they just decide to accept it since it's easier than fighting. Fortunately, some people, even otherwise openly terrible ones a la Bill Barr, told Trump to his face that this was insane treason and they weren't doing it. The Republican Party has been busy trying to remedy that fact by installing mindlessly loyal, Big Lie-believing toadies at every level of the state and federal apparatus, so that the next time a losing Republican candidate asks them to overturn an election, THEY WILL DO THAT. That is a deeply fucking terrifying fact: we had to rely on the personal choice of terrible people to decide that treason was a bridge too far, and say no. Next time, we do NOT have that certainty. As I have said before, our institutions are not designed to automatically counteract an endlessly malicious, evil, stupid wannabe fascist like Trump. They ultimately did hold, but they were stretched to the breaking point, and the GOP has been busily trying to break them the rest of the way ever since.

There are some signs that this message may be getting through, as a recent poll listed "threats to democracy" as the top issue motivating people to vote in the midterms. There has also been major movement toward Democrats on the generic Congressional ballot and overperformance for Democrats in otherwise strongly-Republican states and districts (the Kansas abortion referendum and special House elections in Nebraska and a red district of Minnesota). That is because, as I have said and keep saying, the Republicans are simply too dangerous to be allowed to hold any kind of power again, since they've gone around the crazy bend and then some. Trump's coup failed, but I've seen a lot of people acting like "lol he's so stupid of course it was gonna fail it was never a serious threat." JESUS CHRIST, NO! IT WAS A VERY SERIOUS THREAT AND THE ONLY REASON IT FAILED WAS DUE TO DUMB LUCK! Like, if Officer Eugene Goodman of the Capitol Police hadn't led the insurrectionists away from the open door into the Congress chamber, THEY LITERALLY WERE PLANNING ON MURDERING NANCY PELOSI AND MIKE PENCE. They have said this in their plea filings and their court appearances. They have straight-up admitted that their plan was to decapitate the government and install Trump as dictator. Jesus.

When the Jan. 6 committee publishes their full and formal report, I encourage every American to read it as a matter of basic patriotic and civic duty. Especially if you haven't been paying attention, you are still buying into the "both sides are bad" rhetoric, or anything else. Because this happened, it is still happening, and may yet happen for real if people get complacent and decide that it is over. So. Yes.

[madamspeaker]

She arrives, queenlike, in a designer Italian overcoat, high collar, and sunglasses, lipstick smile at once warm and fixed. An aide guides her by the elbow, security detail in tow, to the dining room of Pier 23, an old-school San Francisco tavern in the Embarcadero with a stuffed marlin on the wall and a multistory cruise ship idling outside. Two workmen in dayglow safety coats crane their necks from the bar to see Nancy Pelosi, Madam Speaker, doyenne of San Francisco, bête noire of the right.

Pelosi removes her shades and requests a bowl of vanilla ice cream with chocolate sauce on top. “A lot of chocolate,” she orders.

I ask her if she’s been briefed on the subject of today’s interview. Her press man told her I was writing “about California,” she says with a knowing twinkle, “and how magnificent it is, and how it is the leader in the world.”

Yes. And no.

Once in a while, an East Coast journalist will come out to California to find out what’s happening in the land of dreams. As Los Angeles goes, so goes the nation; if San Francisco loses its charm, what then? “It’s what’s coming next for you,” Pelosi says, portentously.

Earlier that afternoon, I’d walked through the Tenderloin and seen drug addicts splayed out on street corners and a hundred human tragedies strewn across UN Plaza, City Hall looming helplessly in the background. Dickens meets Dante. “Oh, it’s sad,” Pelosi remarks. “It’s worse now.”

That morning, after a freak snowfall, I’d hiked to the top of Mount Tamalpais in Marin County to survey the preposterous beauty of California and found a snowman with a frown carved into its face. “A couple of days ago was the coldest day in, like, 150 years,” Pelosi notes. “Well, it is what it is,” she shrugs, and tells me how the Spanish missionaries used to follow their livestock to the warmest grazing area with water and then build their settlement, which is how San Francisco got the Mission District. No snowmen down there.

“We consider it heaven on earth,” she says of her kingdom. “Just start at the beginning. The Gold Rush, the movies, agriculture throughout. And now technology. And technology is just—we haven’t seen nothin’ yet. Technology continues to grow. So, economically, for our country, this is where most of it starts.”

Setting aside that California started with the decimation of Indigenous people by those missionaries following their cattle, it’s also the engine room of the modern Democratic Party, soon to be the fourth-largest economy in the world, bigger than Germany’s, and lousy with tech billionaires and Hollywood honchos. And ever since Speaker Pelosi began muscling more seats into Congress decades ago, California has shaped progressive policy, from the environment to gun control to gay and trans rights. “I mean, so many people just flock here to raise money and find kindred souls in terms of the environmental, the LGBTQ, the fairness, health care, you name the subject, saving the planet, whatever it is,” she continues. “It’s not really pragmatic money.”

Governor Gavin Newsom has upped the ante by branding California the “True Freedom State,” a rejoinder to Governor Ron DeSantis’s “Freedom State” slogan, pitching Florida as a kind of anti-woke protectorate. Newsom, perhaps teasing a future White House bid, offers California as the left-wing alternative, a liberal’s shining city on a hill, where diversity and tolerance, science and innovation, money and opportunity form a cutting-edge vision of America. I ask Pelosi what she makes of the motto. “I would like to think of our whole country as a freedom country,” she says. “But we”—California—“certainly lead the way in everything.”

The Golden State has always been as much an idea as a place, a fantasyland for Easterners to pine for and put down. As a model for America, however, it’s giving off decidedly mixed signals: encampments of homeless people, floods and mudslides, drought and wildfires, earthquakes and depleted waterways, home invasions and mass shootings, tech layoffs and entertainment and teacher strikes, drained government coffers and spooky economic shudders. If, as one Democratic consultant told me, California is the “coming attractions for America,” it looks like a trailer for Mad Max: PCH.

People living under bridges and climatological disasters are sobering counterfactuals to the California Dream and also wrenches in the liberal machinery. Increasingly, among Democrats, there is a call for greater toughness. Fear, as Pelosi knows, is contagious. And the “biggest challenge” to California, she says, is “safety.” Democrats, says Pelosi, might have captured the House last year if New York’s governor hadn’t misread the political winds on the issue of crime. “They lost four seats and the governor came within four points,” she notes. “It was terrible on the issue of safety.”

“Whether you want to call it homelessness or drug use or whatever it is,” she says, “safety is the oath we take to protect and defend—yes, the Constitution, but the people. And how do you do that, respectful of people’s rights, but also respectful of their safety?”

Trying to write about the whole of California is akin to the proverbial blind man trying to describe an elephant. But California, by any measure, is undergoing a vibe shift. As a pal of mine in San Francisco put it, “The liberal atom has been split.”

[tchaikovskaya]

wanted to wait until after the election to post this Take lest i be accused of being a russian bot and/or cryptofascist psyop or whatever but

in the last 2 years it has become apparent that the right doesnt really give a fuck about election results. they do in the sense that they want to win, but in the sense of respecting the results of regular elections if they dont go in their favor, they dont. elections are legitimate when they win and fraudulent when they lose. they are CONVINCED of this. this applies to both the hoi polloi and the bigwigs. there are literally still 2020 election deniers sitting in fucking congress.

between january 6th and pelosi's husband, i dont know how you can argue in good faith that electoralism will get us anywhere. i mean it was already mostly useless and oriented toward harm reduction realistically, but now its just fucking alarming. we're talking about an opposing party that has a horde of fervent supporters who have demonstrated several times that they are willing to resort to violence to reverse the results of legitimate elections. they do not believe in the legitimacy of elections, period. they are psychologically moving far past that. and you're rearranging chairs on the deck of the titanic.

[longwindedbore]

We used to call bribery “Graft”.

Now we have renamed bribery as “corporations-are-people-too making enormous dark money donations to largely unregulated and anonymous Political Action Committees.”

If the GOP had not packed the SCOTUS decades ago to get their Citizens United ruling their Party wouldn’t have sufficient political donations to run campaigns.

For sample Jim Jordan gets his money for campaigns from PACs and virtually nothing from his constituents. I haven’t bothered to look at the rest of the GOP clown car, nor the anonymous majority of GOP turds in Congress. What would I find if I did?

The Democrats actually fundraise their constituents as well fundraise from out of towners/out of state contributors with requests by individual campaigners.

BIG HOWEVER: most/all of those individual requests tend to come from the big Pelosi controlled PAC called DNCC. (Not to be -or rather, intentionally to be - confused with DNC.)

The vice grip that one Democrat PAC has on campaign contributions is the essential explanation why a plurality of the Dems are over 110 years old.

The individual state parties that I participated in on a precinct level work hard to suppress leftist, or young & enthusiastic, or even merely interesting candidates who might one day be a threat to the Dem hierarchy.

After all the hierarchy stays in place, even if the candidates lose. But if the more progressive candidates win they can affect who is the Party Leadership

Like the GOP, the other side of the USA’s One Corporate Theatrical Troupe & Debate Team gets most of its funds from corporations.

More accurately, not actually from Corporations shareholders but from 1,500 Ivy-League legacynepo-baby sociopaths who inherited their stock shares with voting power and thus control the Corporations.

if we really want to turn this country around, we would foreclose on all the stocks these geniuses pledged when they failed to stop Covid and had to get their PPP loans. As well as the stocks pledged when they collapsed the world economy in the real estate derivatives scheme in 2008. How about we charge them for the Bush and Trump tax cuts?

Just reset the Fortune 500 corporations as co-ops. Then do a rapid phase out coal coal fired electrical generating plants.

That would end dark money contributions. Change the face and balance of the Parties.

Incidentally, the sociopaths also bribed Congress so they could sell derivatives again. We can expect a stock market housing caused collapse at any time. But given all the other shit, we’re going through who cares about the stock market?

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday that Rep. Kevin McCarthy might need "a doctor," after losing so many Speakership votes.

"It's really sad. I don't even understand it," Pelosi told Politico reporter Meredith Lee Hill, summing up a day of failed ballots in McCarthy's bid to be speaker.

"Given any version of it. I think you would need a doctor or a psychiatrist," Pelosi added, per Hill.

As of Thursday, McCarthy had lost 11 consecutive votes in his attempt to become Speaker. This was even after he agreed to some procedural demands from rebelling Republicans who objected to his leadership.

Pelosi's team also sent out a fundraising email on Thursday evening following McCarthy's multiple failed votes. Insider saw a message from the "Nancy Pelosi for Congress" team, sent with the subject line: "RE: Kevin McCarthy."

"We're mere days into the new Republican House, and one thing has never been clearer: Republicans have already proven that they have no interest in governing For the People," the email from Pelosi's fundraising team received by Insider.

"While Democrats are unified and proud behind our new Leadership Team, ready to get to work protecting Americans' fundamental freedoms... Republicans have fallen into utter chaos – unable to even vote for a Speaker," the email continued. "I refuse to let Republicans' mayhem and extremist plans erase all of the incredible progress that Democrats have made."

NO LOVE LOST BETWEEN PELOSI AND MCCARTHY

There is no love lost between Pelosi and McCarthy. In July 2021, Pelosi called McCarthy a "moron" for criticizing the congressional mask mandate. Three days after Pelosi's July 2021 comments, McCarthy joked at a Republican fundraising event that it would be "hard not to hit" Pelosi with the Speaker's gavel if he were to take over her job.

Meanwhile, McCarthy has been accused by Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz — one of the key "Never Kevin" representatives — of squatting in Pelosi's former office, the Speaker's Suite, despite not having landed the job yet. The "Never Kevin" crew is led by right-wing Republicans who remain strongly opposed to McCarthy's leadership, and include outspoken members like Gaetz, Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert, and Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar.

McCarthy needs 218 votes to take the Speaker's gavel. As of Thursday, the congressman has failed to secure the votes a historic 11 times, with hardline members of the House Freedom Caucus still refusing to back him.

Representatives for McCarthy and Pelosi did not immediately respond to Insider's requests for comment.

[the-jam-to-the-unicorn]

President Zelenskyy addressing the Congress during his worktrip in Washington

The full transcript

Recap of the speech

When President Zelenskyy entered the Congress - invited by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to address a joined Congress, both houses and parties, and talk about Ukraine's struggle and need for financial support and weapons - you could only hear clapping and cheering. Several people rushed to him and wanted to shake the hand of the man of the year. A greeting that did not necessarily have to take place in this way.

The relationship with the US in the past? Problematic. President Trump tried to blackmail him in 2019 with financial aid (in exchange for investigating Hunter Biden, President Biden's son) - the now famous phone call was later part of Trump's Impeachment trial. Trump also was a supporter, if not a friend, of Putin. And after that? A friendly and supportive alliance with Biden - but not necessarily warm. That didn't change immediately in February. While the US is one of Ukraine's strongest and most significant supporters, and Biden supported Ukraine from the beginning of the full-scale war, the tone was neutral overall. Both President's needed a bit of time to get warm with each other. Rumours made the rounds - about disagreements, fights during phone calls, Biden losing interest in Ukraine and thinking about minimizing the support. And now? A different vibe. Even making jokes with Zelenskyy during the press conference. Warmth and friendship are dominating now.

Earlier the day, Zelenskyy had landed in Washington for his first working trip abroad since the start of the full-scale war in February. Nervousness filled the air since this trip meant an extremely high personal risk to Zelenskyy. Russia is still trying to kill or harm him. Back in Ukraine, he still has to live separated from his family because of this and needs 24/7 protection. The visit itself was announced not even 24 hours before. Now, more than 300 days after the start of the war later, Biden welcomed him, holding negotiations and agreeing on new financial help and weapons. In addition, Congress was about to decide on further financial aid in 2023 (45 billion Dollar). 

Entering the Congress was already a success for Zelenskyy, but the real victory was ahead of him. After walking up to the speaker podium and greeting Pelosi and VP Kamala Harris, Zelenskyy couldn't start his speech. The applause and cheering just didn't want to stop. Occasionally "Slava Ukraine!" could be heard - the now famous battle cry, everyday greeting and motivational sentence, representing the country's fight against Russia and the Ukrainians' resilience, courage and strong will. Almost ashamed, but most of all flustered and humbly, Zelenskyy finally remarked to Congress and Pelosi, "I think it's too much". He was visibly moved, a tear in his eye if you look closely. "It's too much for me," he admitted, in an unpretentious way (one of his character marks), before starting his speech.

Something else was also visible. After being in Bakhmut a day earlier and visiting the troops, he travelled via Poland to Washington. Immediately after his arrival, he met with Biden and held a press conference. Then, still with no rest, he rushed to other meetings and interviews to finally speak in front of Congress. Zelenskyy looked, understandably, extremely exhausted. Nevertheless, what was about to follow, was radiating energy, capturing the whole room. But he also looked stiff and extremely nervous - a rare picture from a man who made himself a name in 300 days of the war as being brilliant and naturally gifted (also trained by years of being an actor, comedian, scriptwriter and entertainer) when it comes to speaking to people - no matter the audience and usually with ease, lots of honest and open emotions, addressing each audience individually and fitting and with an understandable, but captivating speech. That even a Volodymyr Zelenskyy can get visibly nervous (which was also evidently visible during his speech) makes him even more likeable and relatable (not that this would be necessary).

After all, the address was important. Before and after the midterms, voices grew louder on the Republican side to minimize or stop the support for Ukraine. Some Democrats joined in. Talking about a ceasefire and peace talks started - ignoring the dangers this ideas posses to Ukraine as well as Russia's unwillingness for peace and diplomatic talks. Several Republican representatives spread Russian Propaganda and openly opposed Zelenskyy. And while it was almost sure the funding of 45 billion Dollars would pass, there was still the possibility of not. So the current and future help from the US depended on Zelenskyy's speech.

After the cheering ended, Zelenskyy could finally speak. What followed was a truly historic moment - for Congress. For Ukraine. And for Zelenskyy himself. 

In a ~25-minute speech, he spoke openly, honestly, emotionally, forcefully and frankly about the war in Ukraine. Including some word plays, memorable pictures and quoting US history and political figures. The address itself is a masterpiece. And, what was even more surprising: Zelenskyy gave it entirely in English, his third language. "A sign of respect" to the Congress, as he called it in an earlier press conference with Pelosi. 

While giving the speech, almost the whole Congress applauded him numerous times, as well as giving him standing ovations. After finishing his speech, the hall erupted again into loud cheering and clapping. Zelenskyy, again visibly moved, smiled from one ear to the other.

He exchanged flags with Pelosi and Harris. Zelenskyy gave them a flag the soldiers of Bakhmut had signed a day earlier and who had asked him to give it to Congress. In return, Zelenskyy received the American flag raised on the Congress earlier that day in honour of his visit.

With that speech, Zelenskyy wrote history. And wrote himself into American history forever.

A Churchillian moment?

No. 

But a Zelenskillian.

[mariacallous]

Ahead of the U.S. midterms, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “The upcoming election will be decided at the kitchen table, as America’s families determine who they trust to fight for them in this challenging moment.”

In an atypical political upset, the Democratic party maintained its Senate majority and edged out the highly anticipated red wave of the House⁠—keeping margins slim. Voters made clear that they are tired of extremist politics and they want real social and economic solutions: They want to expand protections for reproductive rights; enhance workers’ economic security; and increase the availability of nutritious food, affordable housing, health care coverage, and child care. In sum, voters overwhelmingly took the kitchen table issues to the polls.

Across the country, we enter another holiday season with the sharp sting of inflation raising the cost of gas, food, and other basic goods exacerbated by heightened expenses associated with family life. Lack of comprehensive paid leave policies, high-priced, and hard-to-find child care create unique barriers for families that prevent them from building strong financial futures.

Even prior to the pandemic, a lack of comprehensive family support policies created significant economic burdens for parents. A dearth of affordable child care options, in particular, creates a world in which married couples spend 10 percent of their incomes on average⁠—up to 35 percent among single-earner households (nearly 5 times what the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers affordable)—on child care. Parents are forced to make difficult choices about their children’s program quality, the working hours they commit to, and, particularly for mothers, whether they stay in the labor force at all. Even with strong economic recovery in recent months, there remain 432,000 fewer women in the labor force compared to before the pandemic. The loss of women from the workforce shortchanges the economy on potential taxable income (to the tune of nearly $35 billion, annually), contributions to social security, Medicaid, Medicare, and broader family spending power.

On the whole, the U.S. economy loses more than $57 billion annually in lost revenue, wages, and productivity due to persistent issues with child care. A lack of comprehensive paid family leave policies cost American workers nearly $28 billion in earnings during the pandemic⁠—and women were more than 40 percent more likely to take leave without pay, particularly women of color. According to the Committee for Economic Development study, a 1 percent increase in women’s labor force participation would generate $73 billion in new personal family income.

Limited family support policies create a powder keg for our nation’s future. The pandemic’s impact on women’s labor force participation and cascading economic consequences laid the fuse, and the high cost of families’ living expenses is a lit match. Kitchen table economics demands a bipartisan solution to these very real problems that exist on both sides of the aisle.

Millions of parents rely on the child care sector to be able to work⁠—and research suggests that time spent in high-quality child care arrangements has no negative impact on children’s outcomes and may even support school performance down the road. Moreover, boosts to economic well-being through parents’ labor force promotes food security, better housing, improved health and more consistent access to health care coverage and services, better child care and educational opportunities, and more enriching family interactions⁠—all factors that support stronger early development. But parents need supportive family policies to work, care for their children, pay off debt and add to savings, and secure their financial futures.

As the 118th Congress takes its place in the new year with a Democrat-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House, bipartisan efforts to expand family policies must take a front seat. Families need real policy solutions that hit home⁠—coupled with real investments⁠—to make the calculus of having and raising children work.

The U.S. Congress includes dads and moms, aunts and uncles, and grandmothers and grandfathers. As we prepare for the winter holiday, let’s talk about how red and blue districts can work together to support American families. The voters across the nation have spoken: It is time that policies and programs, like comprehensive paid leave and high-quality, accessible child care, become the law of the land.

[oldmancopper]

Republicans

So, as a progressive, there are two things I am seeing, now that Republicans have claimed one chamber of Congress again. And it’s being widely mocked in the progressive media.  Investigating Hunter Biden and celebrating the ‘end’ of Nancy Pelosi And this highlights to me, some key differences.  Democrats tend to follow ideals and policies and elect leaders to enact those.  Whereas Republicans follow leaders and elect them to enact ideals and policies. So, we lose Pelosi - the greatest Speaker of the House in a century... we shrug and move on... all the backup folks will carry on the work, in one way or another.  It changes nothing. Whereas, if the Republicans lose Reagan, or Trump... the wheels come off. And same for ‘owning the libs’ - the Biden investigation is all about turning the table and ha ha investigating and feeding soundbites to the base... Whereas Democrats investigate Republicans for... crimes committed.   We own conservatives by getting married, getting paid, having great sex and controlling our bodies.

[mooifyourecows]

moo i’m so devastated with what america is going to turn into. it already was a shit show but now not only am i losing my right to bodily autonomy and i’m probably going to lose a lot more sooner than later. not only as a woman but also as a lesbian. i’ve seen things about how the supreme court might reverse same-sex marriage protection and i’m honestly prepared for the worst at this point. america is going to turn into hell for everyone in it and likely everyone around it.

I know it's all pretty bleak, but don't lose your hope. If one good thing will come from this nightmare, it's that the moderates and liberals who weren't radicalized before are going to be now. Voting isn't enough, but if we all work together to get leftist politicians into office and get rid of do nothing democrats like Nancy Pelosi, change IS possible

We just need to stay informed, stay mad, and stay hopeful that things can get better. Understand what things you CAN do and don't kill yourself over the things you can't. We flipped states in 2020 and we can flip even more now. Just support the people who lean the utmost to the left. The type of people that all your conservative relatives would call antifa extremists. That's who we need to replace the useless democrats stinking up congress and the senate

If we can get rid of the filibuster and electoral college, expand the court, and codify everything that should have been codified years ago (thanks Obama you useless liar)(biden still has a chance but its looking not good so we will also go ahead and file him under useless too), then we have a chance to make this country about half as good as they tried so hard to brainwash us it was

The younger generations are wising up. They've been radicalized earlier and in larger quantities than the ones who came before them. Every year a new wave of gen Z voters join the fight and you'll see that every year the old conservative incumbents will be replaced with younger, better people who actually give a shit.

I know it's not good enough. I HATE when useless democrats say "vote 😋" as a solution to our problems, especially in a country where the popular vote means nothing and the supreme court isnt elected by regular people. I know its fucking infuriating and ive been overwhelmed by all my rage and sadness the past few days. I want to riot and burn things down, drag our oppressors into the street and publicly execute them so that the change we deserve can happen TODAY. But we live in a horrifically militarized state and even peaceful protesting results in the brutality and death of innocent lives. so our dreams of justified bloodshed can't be so easily carried out

Stay mad though. Educate everyone around you. Help where you can. Remember that there are states where its still legal to get abortion access and there are resources to help people in need. Just stay safe and limit the amount of data they can steal from you in any way possible. Delete the apps that need to be deleted. Install Mozilla Firefox or other browser that ensures privacy. Get a VPN. Don't sign paperwork. Don't talk to the cops. Spread useful information to all your friends and neighbors and classmates and beyond.

Everything fucking sucks but things can always change

[uboat53]

There is history in the making guys. For the first time in exactly 100 years, it may take the House of Representatives more than one vote to elect a speaker!

WHAT?

Okay, so the way this usually goes is that the party with the majority holds a vote among themselves and selects someone, then they all vote for that person in the House itself. Since they have the majority that person will then win the election.

OKAY, SO?

Well, Republicans did this and they selected Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) with about 190 of them voting for him and about 30 against. Normally those 30 would fall in line and vote for him when it came time in the House, but this time some of them aren't.

That wouldn't usually be a problem, several Democrats voted against Pelosi last time around too, but the Republicans have a really small majority, and I mean really small.

Depending on how many people actually show up on the first day, as few as five defectors could cause McCarthy to lose the vote, and five Republicans have already said they're going to do it.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Well, for most people immediately, not much. However, McCarthy or whoever else ends up getting elected is going to have to make some deals to get the votes they need. Either they're going to have to pacify the rogue far-right Republicans or they're going to have to get some of the more conservative Democrats to vote for them.

Depending on what those deals are you could see either a very strong Speaker of the House, someone who can pass legislation and make a real difference in the country, or a very weak one, someone who basically watches helplessly over a monkey house of chaos.

WAIT, 100 YEARS?

Yup, the last time the House failed to elect a Speaker on the 1st ballot was in 1923 after the 1922 election. In fact, they didn't even get one on the second, it took them 9 votes to finally agree on someone.

Of course, that's nothing compared to the 34th Congress in 1855 which took 133 votes to elect a Speaker. That was in the run-up to the Civil War, so hopefully we're not bad off.

Source: https://history.house.gov/People/Office/Speakers-Multiple-Ballots/

Still, it's history in the making if McCarthy can't get the votes by tomorrow. Tune in to see!

[prezelensky]

That standing ovation!!! 😊

I have to admit, I didn't expect that. From both sides. They just wouldn't quit! Pelosi was a bit premature w the gavel.... but in the end the President had to start! Sounded like the cheers wouldn't stop!

Ans so much support during the speech!

I think Congress understands how much President Zelensky and Ukraine are fighting for freedom and democracy. How inspiring it is. After our problems with it (sometimes I wonder if the problems are inflated and sometimes made worse by the media, which thrives on conflict...). We could use a little inspiration. Show what free people can do when they unite for a common cause. An older democracy can teach a younger, but a younger also has things to teach an older. Remind what we're fighting for. And if we live in a democracy, we have the common cause of preserving it. Something precious we dare not lose.

Ukraine shows what fighting for freedom really is (which the US hasn't had for a while, at least war-wise)

[madamspeaker]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/13/pelosi-lessons-next-gop-speaker-house/

When progressive hard-liners used to come to Nancy Pelosi with yet with another unrealistic demand for action from their wish list, the then-speaker had a standard reply ready: “I agree with you. I have those signs in my basement from 30 years ago. But right now, you’re in the Congress of the United States. We’re not on the streets with the signs.”

Pelosi would tell them that when they had 218 votes behind them, a majority in the House, she’d be happy to talk to them again: “But otherwise, recognize that we have to build consensus ... and live to fight another day.”

The speaker’s role comes with many such moments, she recalled in an interview in her office on Thursday; as we talked, Republicans who now hold a tenuous majority in the House were huddled across the street in the Capitol, unable to come together to select their own leader to take over the wreckage that Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has left behind.

Pelosi and others who held the gavel learned — but the deposed McCarthy never did — that one of the hardest and most vital things a speaker must do is say no, sometimes to friends and ideological allies. At times, her majority was so narrow she could afford to lose no more than three votes. But without a leader willing and powerful enough to summon that kind of fortitude, the House is ungovernable.

McCarthy’s constant appeasement of a handful of bellicose GOP members is what got us to this pitiful moment. He put their hard-line legislation on the floor knowing it would go no further, gave them key committee assignments — and even signed what was effectively the death warrant of his own speakership by agreeing to allow the rule in which any member could call for a vote to vacate the chair.

All of this should be an object lesson to whoever gets the job next. As departing speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) advised his own successor, Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.): “You can promise effort, but don’t promise results.” Both Boehner and Ryan saw their leadership undermined by the demands of a rising hard-right faction within their party, but it was McCarthy who ceded effective control of the chamber to them.

“Part of the job of the speaker is to manage reality rather than fantasy,” former speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) told me.

For Pelosi, who had a solidly liberal record, an early test came shortly after Democrats regained their majority in the 2006 election and elevated her to the speakership. The big issue in that election had been the Iraq War, and she had been one of the most outspoken opponents to it. Which is why many in her caucus felt betrayed when she did not stand in the way of Congress providing more funds for the conflict without insisting on a clear timetable for ending it — an end date that would not pass the Senate nor survive George W. Bush’s veto.

“My message to them was, I’ll compare my credentials on opposing this war to anybody here, but as long as the troops are at war, we must support them,” Pelosi recalled. “I basically said to them, we all support the troops. But we have to do it when it’s difficult as well as when it’s easy.”

In 1996, Gingrich brought legislation raising the minimum wage to the House floor — a popular measure conservatives were against and yet knew would pass with a combination of Democratic and more moderate GOP support.

In that year’s election, “we had 23 districts where members thought they would lose if they didn’t get a vote,” Gingrich told me. It was an especially bitter pill to swallow for Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Tex.), who opposed the very existence of a minimum wage. And yet, Armey argued in a private meeting, the survival of their majority hinged on allowing the House to work its collective will.

When Boehner was speaker, one of his closest friends in the House would regularly come to his office and plead for a seat on the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. Boehner would hear out the member, then tell him: “Not gonna happen.”

But now “the reality is we have a lot of members who have distorted views of what’s possible,” said Brendan Buck, a former aide to both Boehner and Ryan.

It might be that only one of the bomb-throwers themselves — say, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) — would have the credibility it takes to say no to them, though there is little evidence he has that capacity for pragmatism and respect for the institution. Or maybe it has to be a graybeard such as Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who is respected across the various factions within a party that is squabbling with a pettiness that would put a small-town city council to shame.

But someone has to do it. At this moment of peril for the country, and the world, there is too much at stake for any new speaker to continue indulging the least responsible actors in Congress. Is there a grown-up in the House?

[sethshead]

This encapsulates Obama's greatest weakness in his first term. Obama firmly believed that Democrats could benefit off Republican obstruction. If the voters saw what Democrats were trying to achieve, the thinking went, and it was made clear that Republicans were blocking these popular policies, then voters would turn out for Democrats to overwhelm Republicans and achieve the promised gains.

But that's not how voters think.

Voters want to see victory, not excuses. The party that loses a vote in congress on popular legislation will be blamed by the people for having screwed up, for being impotent, weak and feckless, giving the party that blocked the bill an advantage. It's a perverse paradox, but that's the psychology. This is why it's important to ignore the "do something, anything" activists who demand losing battles and moral victories. They are ignoring this salient and observable phenomenon, and will drive their own party into the ground. Obey the Pelosi rule: never bring something forward for a vote (or executive order) if you can't guarantee success. The best way to lose in politics is to lose.

[dertaglichedan]

A tool which mimics the trading activity of Congress members has gained 21 percent in the past year, performing twice as well as the stock market average

A separate tracker which follows trades by Nancy Pelosi reveals her investments have increased by 50 percent in the past 12 months

In some instances, members of congress have bought into companies just days before their prices have boomed, earning them tens of thousands of dollars

Investors dedicate countless hours to solving the mystery of how to beat the stock market - and many lose millions of dollars in the process