this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
898 points (98.5% liked)

politics

21142 readers
4006 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sure, but that's not relevant at all to this post topic which is about a specific current event and not in any way suggesting storming out of votes.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

This specific current event happened in the chamber of congress while congress was in session. They could hold a vote at any moment.

[–] Grindl@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not during a joint session. The house and senate were not themselves in session.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

On the day of the joint session, 03/04, there were no less than 80 actions taken in congress and no less than 3 votes which passed in the House of Representatives LINK HERE. If you have evidence of a specific law preventing votes during a joint session, and specifying how long a joint session lasts at minimum, please present it.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

On live TV, with Trump standing up there, you think the Speaker of the House is just going to call a snap vote in a chamber they already control and resolve it before the missing members could get back to the chamber? And that such an act would just be accepted as a clever procedural move to avoid the handful of objections in their majority caucus rather than a significant step toward the end of democracy?

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -3 points 3 days ago

If enough people left the room I expect it, yes. It's certainly what I would do in their position (thank god I'm not them).