House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) called for Republicans to “get their act together” and elect the next speaker while slamming the “extremists” within their party.

  • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Traditional Republicans have a name.

    Its called “Democrat”.

    What used to be “the left” is now just a more moderate, reasonable right.

    What used to be “the right” is not even on the spectrum anymore, its become a populist extremist reactionary fascism. It’s so far off the chart its on an entirely separate piece of paper.

    Jeffries needs to just accept this fact and walk across the floor. Liberals are now Conservatives, and Conservatives are now Nazis.

    Edit: Misread that Jeffries was a Republican, the fact he’s a Democrat changes the context a bit. He’s absolutely right but he’s basically just talking about what I re-iterated above, but its the republican “traditionals” that need to walk across the floor and stop associating with Nazis if they dont wanna go down with that ship.

    The extremists they are associating with are just going to Crabs in the Bucket them, clawing them down with them when things go under. If they were smart they’d drop the screaming children and walk over to where all the adults have gone.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I love how a hot take from someone who didn’t even know Hakeem Jeffries is a Democrat has 100+ up votes. Lemmy is so ridiculously uneducated.

      • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whether he is a Democrat or Republican doesnt really impact the overall point of my statement mate, it’s tangentially related but not foundation to what I said.

    • minorninth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even ignoring the part where you didn’t realize Jeffries is a Democrat, this is just not a fair characterization of Democrats at all, as if they’re all the same.

      Democrats in congress represent a broad spectrum from quite liberal to moderate conservative. Even by European standards.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    1 year ago

    It is absolutely wild to me that most major news organizations are completely ignoring the fact that the guy the GOP was trying to put into the speakership until a day or two ago is an overt white supremacist. Like… news anchors are straight up omitting that entire point. It’s not even being mentioned in passing comments.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      he guy the GOP was trying to put into the speakership until a day or two ago is an overt white supremacist

      Bruh I’m gonna need you to be more specific.

    • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      MSNBC reported that a few house members wouldn’t vote for Scalise because of the white nationalist bit. So it isn’t totally ignored, but then again MSNBC would never miss an opportunity like that.

    • worldwidewave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Liz Cheney was probably the last “traditional Republican” they had and they made an example of her. Kevin picked country over party and that led to his ousting. Who’s going to side with the Democrats now?

      • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        1 year ago

        The craziest part about McCarthy is that (I would argue) he still choose party over country but the crazy members of the party couldn’t see that. He knew a shutdown would have been devastating for their image, but all the extremists could see was working with the enemy.

        • worldwidewave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Good points. McCarthy thought he was picking party and country, but his insane coalition wouldn’t see that.

        • TechAnon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree, but so far the extremists have been proven right. Their way or the highway has, so far, worked for them to get them to where they are at: minority rulers within their party.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            They are, but they’re also destabilizing their party with petty squabbles. They haven’t reached some kind of political equilibrium where they can keep doing this indefinitely.

            The Soviet Union seemed like it was here to stay right up until the moment it suddenly wasn’t. Things happened very fast over the course of just a few days, and everyone was blindsided by it. I think the GOP might be heading for that same situation.

            • TechAnon@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Definitely won’t last forever, but hard to say how long they have. Hoping things fall apart for them sooner vs later so we can actually have a functioning government.

        • JonEFive@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s also why McCarthy took the very first opportunity he had to slam the democrats after the bipartisan vote to get the temporary funding bill through. He was trying to prove that he still hated the dems, but that wasn’t enough for his party.

      • Iwasondigg@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. They made Liz fucking Cheney persona non grata in the Republican party. The patients are running the asylum now. There’s no one behind the wheel of that clown car.

      • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s not hard to find five Republicans from a moderate district full of Never Trumpers. They would secure their seat voting for Jeffries and see their own legislation get pushed through.

        • NABDad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          If the moderates voted in the primary, perhaps.

          They should, but I don’t think they do.

        • TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would personally love to see that happen, but I think it’s unlikely. It would probably be more likely to get a more conservative compromise Democrat as speaker of the house, but only after the Republican party festers for another week or two.

    • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      I get the cynicism but I could see an outcome where Democrats provide support to a moderate (or Jeffries with 5 Republicans) in exchange for passing a few things with broad support. And then the speaker resigns and Republicans go back to beclowning themselves.

      Something like a deal to elect a speaker for enough time to pass aid to Ukraine and Israel and another continuing resolution to keep the government open beyond the 45 days. Something like that. Then back to where we are now.

    • clearedtoland@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair, he seems pretty clear that the he is willing to direct the caucus to vote for an agreed upon republican, rather than seek the speakership himself.

      • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right. Republicans would never agree to a Democrat speaker. They would rather watch the country burn down than to do that.

        Now there is an endless list of other things they may need to agree to for Democrats to partner.

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Republicans would never agree to a Democrat speaker.

          You don’t know that. Their entire house is broken. Dem’s need five. Its 100% on the table.

          • 2Blave@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You think there are currently FIVE R’s in the House who are willing to put the well being of this country before their party?

            HA HA.

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh you mistake me.

              I think there are 5 R’s who are dumb enough to make a show of things by voting for a Dem, just to spite their opponents within the party. Its always the dumbest people who think they are the smartest.

              I quite literally think that some R’s would actually cut off their nose to spite their face to “own” their perceived opponents.

              I put nothing past them and leave everything on the table.

  • III@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    The sad part of all of this is that traditional Republicans have handed the party reigns over to extremists for the illusion of maintaining power. Had they told their crazies to go pound sand and fallen behind Democrats they would likely be capable of course correcting to retain some level of competition with liberals. Instead they gave power to nut-bags who have pretty much ensured their eventual, permanent demise.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Instead they gave power to nut-bags who have pretty much ensured their eventual, permanent demise.

      Which is what we can hope for, and it would be quite OK if it happens.

      The only danger of a destruction of the GOP would be that the Democrats would eventually stay in power too long for their own good. This is not something against the Democrats, it is just pointing out human nature. Power simply corrupts, each and every time.

      So one of the things the Democrats should do if they have sufficient pull is to get the voting system in order. Drop FPTP. Drop the way the president is elected and replace it by a more realistic one, one that actually represents the population. Remove the stupid “two senators per state” rule and replace it by one that actually represents the country - in the senate, a citizen from a flyover state has way more influence than those from the states with higher populace.

      The fun thing here is that the US already had fixed these problems decades ago. Just not in their own country. When the Federal Republic of Germany (i.e. West Germany) was founded, they implemented a bicameral system and voting methods based on the known problems of the US voting system (and others, but primarily the US). Now the German system has it’s issues, too, but they are known, and a known problem usually can be fixed.

  • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    The challenge is finding 5 house GOP who actually care about the American people. My guess is there aren’t 5.

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Traditional” meaning Republicans that feel the same way as the “extremists”, but with the common sense to not say it blatantly and bluntly.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Republicans havnt fundamentally changed since Reagan pulled the republicans off the cliff, All that has changed is saying the quiet parts out loud and proud.

        50 years ago they still wanted the same shit, They just hid it behind coded and colorful language and only whispered it bluntly behind closed doors with close, trusted compatriots.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Correct. Their extreme wing, the Chaos Caucus, has become too extreme even for them. Unfortunately for Republicans their majority in the House relies on the same bozos who are acting like an opposition party. So while Republicans have a technical majority they do not have a functional majority.

      What’s crazy is that since the Freedumb Caucus is in such opposition to the wider body of Republicans that they’ve handed the Democrats a functional majority on several issues, including the Speakership.

      The pack of idiots led by Matt Gaetz cut off their own nose (McCarthy) in order to spite their face so now the Speaker situation can only end with a candidate that has enough Bi-Partisan support to overcome them and after that happens the House is going to advance legislation that’s far more liberal than anything that would have been done under McCarthy.

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    “But but … but then the Libs might win”

    Better than being associated with those extremist white taliban, is it not?

  • halferect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Isn’t the point of the republican party to dismantle and shut down the government? Why would they “get their act together” when the literally platform on shutting down as much of the government down? This whole thing is going exactly the way republicans dream of. They have stopped any governing from happening which is the republican dream

    • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      How are they going to ban abortion, interracial marriage, and unionizing; run an ethnostate; empower corporations; forbid regulations; or any of the other authoritarian policies they want to implement if there is no government?

      You should probably be watching their actions instead of listening to their words.

      • halferect@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        By making the government a disfunctional mess and blaming democrats and spreading misinformation while pushing everything to a corrupt supreme court. Which is what they are doing

        • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not really that dysfunctional imo. The courts are doing a lot of the lifting like you mention because that is the group that has the most power at the moment (and not just the SC), but they had no problem getting Trump’s tax cuts and other big legislation through. They also extended the use of military assets and federal police against protesters during BLM, and have been establishing secret police even this year such as in NC. The corporate subsidies still get approved in a split Congress, although greenwashing is the latest aesthetic. Controlled munitions are still being approved for reloading Israel. I guess I just have to disagree that their actions have effected any reduction in government power. Bill Barr was the one literally pushing for a dictatorship just a few years ago (Unitary Executive Theory) and he’s a GOP power player.

          • halferect@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I guess I should have said ending democracy instead of ending the government.by getting rid of any functions of the government that insure democracy is the goal. Or the goal is destroying the institutions of democracy which defacto would destroy our government and institute a new type of government

    • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are ALL FOR big government. I don’t know where you are seeing them wanting the government shut down. They just don’t want a government that supports freedom for its citizens, but they’re all about ensuring governmental control.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) called for Republicans to “get their act together” and elect the next speaker while slamming the “extremists” within their party.

    Jeffries joined PBS News Hour inside the Capitol Thursday night after Speaker-designate Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.)

    “I know there are traditional Republicans who are good women and men who want to see government function, but they are unable to do it within the ranks of their own conference, which is dominated by the extremist wing,” Jeffries said.

    Several far-right members who helped initiate former Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s ousting have continued to oppose solutions offered by the party.

    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, said she voted for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) in the secret ballot, saying she likes Scalise but wants to see him focus on defeating cancer, which he announced as “very treatable” in August.

    Democrats may nominate Jeffries as their pick for speaker, potentially placing him in a race to 217 votes against whoever the GOP ultimately decides to send to the House floor.


    The original article contains 321 words, the summary contains 173 words. Saved 46%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    While I don’t hold out any hope for it, a splintering of one of the two parties would likely be a good thing regardless. We need more viable parties.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      We need more viable parties.

      Well, the only way to get there is to fix the US voting and representation systems. FPTP has to go, and all important points in the US legislative need to have proper, democratic representation instead of this “Two Senators per state, regardless how many they represent”. And while they are at it, make Gerrymandering impossible by removing the power to redrad the district maps at will. You will need an algorithmically method to draw district maps without any influence from race or political affiliation, simply based on the address of a person.

      That will be a chance to stop the reduction of numbers of parties, as they suddenly get a voice for their concerns even when they “only” have e.g. 20% or just 5% of the voters. And this will also teach the parties the need to work together in a reliable way. Coalitions and stuff.

      Look how other countries do it, learn what is good and what is bad with their voting systems, and implement the best solution that is acceptable.

    • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s not how we’d get more parties with our voting system. If the GOP fractured because of this then there might be chaos for brief period of time, but sooner than later everything would get settled back to two parties. Our system is set up so that it just plain suboptimal to do otherwise.

    • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s what he’s doing here. If Democrats calls on MAGA to unite with the GOP, they can’t do it or it’ll look like they’re following the Dems lead, and they must disagree with Dems at all costs. So by simply stating the obvious path forward for the extremists, he’s poisoning the well and making it more difficult for that to actually happen.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We wouldn’t get more parties. I’m expecting eventually the Democrat party ends up in position as the right wing party and we get a “Progressive” party (or maybe some other name) as the new left wing party. It wouldn’t be the first time this happens, but I don’t know if it’s actually possible with the way media works now and how hated the name of the Democrats is on the right.

      The voting system is designed for tactical voting between two major parties. It can’t support more. That needs to change. Maybe we could see that as things shift around though. Who knows?

  • Grant_M@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The only way out of this situation is for 5 or more Rs to agree to nominate and vote for Jeffries. Otherwise there will never be a speaker until the Dems win back the house.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The time to do this was ages ago, it comes too late. The normal Republicans are the extremists, they took over the party.