It’s not though.
This isn’t about “media talking points.” Adelita Grijalva’s election was certified by Arizona’s secretary of state, the House majority simply refused to schedule her swearing-in. That’s on the official record. The last time Congress blocked a certified member from taking the oath was over a century ago, and it was condemned by both parties as a constitutional failure. Calling that “both sides” is just factually wrong. Only one side controls the calendar.
As a point of order, earlier in this Congress, new members from special elections (e.g., two Florida Republicans and a Virginia Democrat) were sworn in within 24 hours of their election, while the House was not in full session. Just wanna confirm that your alls response as to why this time is justified is the Gov shutdown? Can we just get that one on record?
You say “no one cares about Epstein.” That’s convenient and pathetically incorrect. The issue isn’t the man, it’s whether Congress will release federal files that may implicate powerful people from both parties. That’s transparency, not gossip. Brushing it off only shows how partisanship outweighs curiosity about corruption.
And sure, both parties have their narcissists, but equating systemic obstruction with ordinary dysfunction is a false balance. Trust in Congress has dropped from nearly 70 percent in the 1970s to about 20 percent today. That decline tracks perfectly with the rise of tribal loyalty over constitutional duty.
We all swore an oath once. It wasn’t to a party, and it wasn’t to a personality cult. Watching people on this forum who once understood that retreat behind cynicism and call it realism, it’s hard to decide whether that’s sadder or more dangerous.