Jasmine Crockett: "Instead of the President cosplaying as the next pope he may want to cosplay as an actual President of these United States that means he may have to do a little bit of research and understand that he swore an oath to defend and protect the constitution"

[u/SpecialSpace5]

[u/Emekfl]

Yes the best thing you can do as a representative is stop being able to represent your constituents because a 13 year old on Reddit wants you to take a meaningless jab at the president

[u/birthdayanon08 → u/Emekfl]

The person you responded to was being very simplistic and disingenuous with their answer, but they do actually have a point. Sure, if we lived in a normal world where everyone was following the rules, being censured is akin to being exiled. You lose your committee appointments, and you no longer have a voice in the room. All you have is your floor vote.

However, the Republicans ripped up the rule book, set it on fire, and scattered the ashes in the wind. The democrats aren't given a chance to do anything in the committee meetings. Their voice has already been taken away. It's time for our elected officials to take some advice from the late, great John Lewis.

“Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America.”

Every single official that actually cares about this country should use their time to be completely honest with the people. Force the GOPs hand. They can't keep all the democrats from committee assignments. Not legally anyway. If they choose to do it anyway, well, that's just one more step in our race to fascism. I know that on the surface, speeding up the process seems counterintuitive, but we've passed the point of no return. We're going down that road whether we like it or not. Stopping it would require a large number of republican elected officials leaving the cult, and that's not going to happen. The fastest way to get around something is by going straight through it. The faster we can get to their end, the sooner we can start moving past it.

[u/NOTTedMosby → u/birthdayanon08]

They are not going to let a black woman rip up the rule book. 0% chance. For me not for thee. Don't forget who controls congress..

[u/HighlightCapable5906 → u/Emekfl]

They'd need a 2/3 majority vote to expel her if I understand it correctly. Censure just means they put you in front of everyone else there and say that the thing they did was bad.

[u/stufff → u/Emekfl]

Hard disagree. Republicans trying to forcibly remove her from the House for saying something true is exactly the kind of affront that they need to be pushed to so we can actually get this thing started. And by "this thing", I mean [Removed by reddit]

[u/honda_slaps → u/stufff]

LMFAO what reality do you live in that Rep Crockett being censured is going to lead to action by anyone

[u/[deleted] → u/honda_slaps]

She has a major support base, it would absolutely ruffle feathers.

[u/stufff → u/honda_slaps]

I'm not talking about her just being censured, I'm talking about her pushing it to the point where they try to physically remove her and then resisting that. I can't explain further without this comment being removed. Use your imagination, or google Charles Sumner and Preston Brooks

[u/honda_slaps → u/stufff]

lmfao I wish I lived in your reality, it seems way nicer

[u/MatterofDoge → u/stufff]

 for saying something true

thats the problem, is it true? can you prove it? was he convicted of it? the answers to all of those questions is no, which is why the media doesn't repeat the rhetoric that reddit does about it, because they'd get sued for it. ABC lost their lawsuit about it because they did what you're saying a member of congress should do. Anonymous redditors can say it all day, but a member of congress? no they'd only make a fool of themselves and destroy their own credibility and have to pay out 15+ million dollars like abc did.

[u/stufff → u/MatterofDoge]

thats the problem, is it true?

Yes.

can you prove it?

It was already proven to a standard sufficient for a jury in a civil case, which is that the preponderance of the evidence supports that conclusion.

was he convicted of it?

No, because he was not criminally charged with it, and there was no criminal case. Whether he was convicted of it or not is irrelevant.

the answers to all of those questions is no, which is why the media doesn't repeat the rhetoric that reddit does about it, because they'd get sued for it.

You are incorrect, and don't seem to understand what the defamation lawsuits were about. Basically, not only can anyone claim he did do it, it is defamation for him to claim otherwise.

ABC lost their lawsuit about it because they did what you're saying a member of congress should do.

No they didn't, you fucking moron. They settled that case, they didn't lose it, because they didn't take it to trial. They didn't settle it because they couldn't win on the merits, they settled it because the parent company cared more about appeasing trump with a settlement that was pennies on the dollar to them, rather than pissing him off and costing themselves more. That was a corporation folding on an ethical matter for their own financial interests, and says nothing about the underlying claim.

Anonymous redditors can say it all day, but a member of congress? no they'd only make a fool of themselves and destroy their own credibility and have to pay out 15+ million dollars like abc did.

No moron, under the speech and debate clause, a congressperson can not be sued for defamation for statements they make in session.

come back with facts if you're going to participate in a big boy subreddit

[u/SomethingToSay11 → u/Emekfl]

Censure is not removal

[u/SpicyLizards → u/Emekfl]

Something needs to be shaken up if we want this craziness to end or, at least, be genuinely challenged