|
Ravenfood posted:Is this something that would be subject to review by SCOTUS? This is not something the Supreme Court is going to hear or object to. If the Biden administration and Congress wants to redo the census, they can. However, depending on the result it may not be strategically wise. Obviously if its hilariously hosed up then they just have to redo it, but if it ends up merely being something like "well, we think CA may have lost 1 seat they shouldn't and there's now one extra seat in Alabama", then they may want to just let it go and proceed to the redistricting if they end up loving annihilating the GOP at the state level and gain the ability to draw maps in a lot of states. Its more important to ratfuck the GOP in time for 2022, then to risk the ability to draw those maps. What to do next depends on how badly the census gets messed up, and mathematically there's a decent reason to think that they won't be able to screw it up much. (the CHUD proposal to arbitrarily reduce the count in blue states because of illegal immigration is a totally separate issue that will be trashed by Biden and the new congress).
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Haha holy poo poo I'm so mad nobody posted the clip of Pelosi melting down that the dumbest man on CNN dunked on her That was somehow even worse than I expected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
I am so sick of this country’s politicians. A lot of them couldn’t care any less of us, we are dollar store candy to them. I feel that even if the election happens and it’s a Biden win, we still have to deal with Trump running the country for two more months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Just pass a loving second round of checks then and then if Mitch or the white house kills it it's their problem The brilliant negotiating strategy of "giving your opponents the only nonghoulish thing they want in exchange for literally nothing, and then get them to agree to fix the dire situation caused by their ongoing inaction later" will work about as well here as it did with passing clean increases on the debt ceiling. I get it. A quick read of my posting history on the topic will confirm I've held the stance of "eventually you'll need to accept a deal shittier than HEROES in order to get any aid at all to people, because Republicans are absolute trash who don't care about human suffering". I'm grateful I'm not the one who has to decide when $1,200 outweighs the costs of inaction on extending the UI topup, providing a lifeline to state/local governments, funding the USPS, or standing up an effective nationwide test and trace program (which appears to be the current sticking point with the White House). Because a clean check now kills all of that until the end of January at best. It would seem odd to bail on the process after gaining repeated concessions from the flailing White House and seeing indications that Mitch is getting nervous in order to take an offer that'll always be there 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/shaneharris/status/1316142465058050049?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
Burning_Monk posted:Goddamn Democrats' messaging is such poo poo. 'WE FEED PEOPLE' I insist as I deny even the loving pennies that could put food on people's tables for a short term. Paracaidas posted:The brilliant negotiating strategy of "giving your opponents the only nonghoulish thing they want in exchange for literally nothing, and then get them to agree to fix the dire situation caused by their ongoing inaction later" will work about as well here as it did with passing clean increases on the debt ceiling. people literally need the checks, worrying about giving trump a 'win' while he actively shits his campaign down the toilet is pointless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:that's not quite the (bad) scotus news, and it's not an accurate description of what happens if we (wrongly) end census enumeration tomorrow / next week and keep it ended also the worst impacts of a hosed up census wouldn't be in representative allocation, they'd be in federal funding allocation which can get pretty granular, but is also fixable by a functioning Congress
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:'WE FEED PEOPLE' I insist as I deny even the loving pennies that could put food on people's tables for a short term. Your death is a small price to pay for our glorious liberal revolution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:https://twitter.com/tomlobianco/status/1316141403202818049?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:https://twitter.com/tomlobianco/status/1316141403202818049?s=21 yeah He like trump believes in their own fake "we are winning by a landslide in november because "LAW and order" so he blew it on dumb poo poo early. Ringo Star Get posted:I am so sick of this country’s politicians. A lot of them couldn’t care any less of us, we are dollar store candy to them. yeah but if/when Biden wins big, trumps power is gonna be broken hard. he will piss and moan and probably try to pardon himself and such but he is gonna be ignored even harder by the GOP and others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
Yo, I don't subscribe to business insider, can somebody please post the sweet stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:47
|
|
|
Everyone posted:Yeah, pretty much this for me. And while the loss of the ACA wouldn't directly affect me immediately, that's because I work at a company with a strong union so I got good benefits. And you know god-damned well those reactionary fucks would try (and have tried) to hunt the unions to extinction to turn my rear end into a wage-serf. Yeah, I like to think this is inevitable and will simply have to happen eventually, if for no other reason that you simply can't have literal masses of people dying in the streets. But then I realize that's already sort of happening so now I'm just down to wondering where the tipping point is since nobody seems to think this is sustainable. Trouble is, with income disparity being what it is, the ONLY way to fund it is by soaking the 5% and I don't know how that happens as long as they're the ones in charge. Things are pretty bleak and I don't see a way out. I guess we're all supposed to look up youtube videos on how to make our insulin or something. I have no idea what people think this country stands for. I really don't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:47
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:'WE FEED PEOPLE' I insist as I deny even the loving pennies that could put food on people's tables for a short term. I know whining about democrats is your whole shtick, but you're kind of showing your whole rear end with this 'Why won't the weak, controlled opposition Democrats immediately surrender to Republican hostage-taking and just pass the clean bill!!!' take. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:I know whining about democrats is your whole shtick, but you're kind of showing your whole rear end with this 'Why won't the weak, controlled opposition Democrats immediately surrender to Republican hostage-taking and just pass the clean bill!!!' take. showing your whole rear end by stating that people are starving to death and need money
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
Hairy Marionette posted:It is now and always has been freedom to perform my religion. The religion that needs to be removed from schools is all of the religion that I disagree with. The Jesus Movement was old world qanon and Celsus was right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:I know whining about democrats is your whole shtick, but you're kind of showing your whole rear end with this 'Why won't the weak, controlled opposition Democrats immediately surrender to Republican hostage-taking and just pass the clean bill!!!' take. I don't care about 'surrender' when it's a simple issue of 'pass a loving bill saying everyone gets some more checks you dumb piece of poo poo', you cannot make me care about 'surrender' when the alternative is 'nobody gets the money they need to survive well'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This is not something the Supreme Court is going to hear or object to. If the Biden administration and Congress wants to redo the census, they can. We don't want to ratfuck the GOP though, we want to draw fair competitive districts that best reflect democratic values. Eliminating Republicans with gerrymanders is how we got in this mess in the first place. Democrats gerrymandered Republicans over half a century ago and it came back to bite Democrats. Ban gerrymandering, mandate districts be convex, use open source and transparent algorithms to maintain fairness in the system. Republicans nation wide will still lose and be locked out of power forever if they actually have to campaign and win fair elections; some will win seats but this is fine, because its a democracy; and in some places the majority are republicans and should be allowed to elect Republican representatives. Ideally you'd have Single Transferable Vote and even places like New York would be able to send representatives for Republicans while also allowing blood red states to send additional democrats. A fairer system would be better overall in the long run and not an invitation for more roosters to roost in your attic reminding you of your mistakes. Being fair as long as it isn't unilateral disarmament and is applied more or less all at once via something like HR.1 will be more than enough to "ratfuck" the GOP where the ratfucking is them losing national relevance because of their failed strategies and discredited ideology; there's no need to go for an eye for an eye, it's risking overreach and a clapback and we're all right back where we started. Keep an eye on the real prize and that needs keeping an eye on the big picture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
Oh BTW since I am a huge math nerd, I did the calculations for the reapportionment based on the 2019 estimate. The final count will have a different result because there's always a couple surprises somewhere, but this is close to what we are tentatively *expecting* to see: Gain 2 seats: TX Gain 1 seat: AZ, CO, FL, MT, NC, OR, Lose 1 seat: CA, IL, MI, MN, NY, PA, RI, WV So if we still count AZ as red and CO blue for now in a normal year, we should expect +3 in reliable red states, -2 in reliable blue states, and -1 in competitive states. The GOP might hope to push that expected small gain higher. The final two states to gain in my spreadsheet were Montana and Florida. Texas just barely missed out on gaining a 3rd seat, so if the Census does announce TX +3, don't be surprised. edit: I guess my math slightly differs from what the media reported earlier this year. I took a seat from CA and gave a seat to MT. Rigel fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:I don't care about 'surrender' when it's a simple issue of 'pass a loving bill saying everyone gets some more checks you dumb piece of poo poo', you cannot make me care about 'surrender' when the alternative is 'nobody gets the money they need to survive well'. But there's literally no way the Republicans have any interest in actually doing that? I agree that her messaging is dogshit because she's not making it clear what's actually going on, but the Republicans have never and will never agree to that so it's kind of false framing to suggest that this is just Democratic intransigence
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:03
|
|
|
Also McConnell has repeatedly stated he's not interested in passing any sort of stimulus so where is this bullshit about "just give the Republicans what they want" even coming from?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
Endorph posted:showing your whole rear end by stating that people are starving to death and need money what the gently caress is that probation like come on you could have at least pretended by leaving out the “valid concerns” bit sexpig by night posted:I don't care about 'surrender' when it's a simple issue of 'pass a loving bill saying everyone gets some more checks you dumb piece of poo poo', you cannot make me care about 'surrender' when the alternative is 'nobody gets the money they need to survive well'. you do that and then basically every state goes bankrupt and the economy craters because the White House will refuse any further stimulus, while trump is currently pleading to go bigger evilweasel fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
Sending out a check and nothing else is the equivalent of giving someone with a broken leg a single shot of painkiller and kicking them out of the ER. When it wears off poo poo is still broken and we're right back to where we are today. To get people back on their feet we need to fix the actual problem and provide support for the entire time it takes for their leg to heal. There, better messaging than the Democratic leadership made up in 30 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:07
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:people literally need the checks, worrying about giving trump a 'win' while he actively shits his campaign down the toilet is pointless. With added emphasis: Paracaidas posted:I'm grateful I'm not the one who has to decide when $1,200 outweighs the costs of inaction on extending the UI topup, providing a lifeline to state/local governments, funding the USPS, or standing up an effective nationwide test and trace program (which appears to be the current sticking point with the White House). Because a clean check now kills all of that until the end of January at best. The tradeoff isn't Checks vs a Win for Trump. The tradeoff is Checks + a ton of even more necessary relief vs Checks + no other relief. Trump and more than 50 senators really want checks. Trump wants it badly enough he's letting Mnuchin agree to a ton of poo poo that Meadows and Mitch oppose. At some point you have to pull the plug and just get the money, and again I stress how thankful I am that I'm not making that call. But this framing: sexpig by night posted:you cannot make me care about 'surrender' when the alternative is 'nobody gets the money they need to survive well'. Framed from the other direction, acknowledging that the White House is willing to give up more than one trillion dollars in additional spending in order to get it passed: "Pressure mounts on Pelosi to sacrifice $3,200 in monthly unemployment benefits, assistance to state and local governments, and a nationwide test and trace program in exchange for a single $1,200 check"
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:09
|
|
|
Kamala Harris and ACB currently butting heads, it's pretty fun to watch if you like two legal experts grinding each other down to dust.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
Wilbur Swain posted:Kamala Harris and ACB currently butting heads, it's pretty fun to watch if you like two legal experts grinding each other down to dust. Are two legal experts arguing about their exchange?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
the point of not signing off on a clean stimiulus check is that its perhaps the strongest carrot to get republicans to agree to other things that are more improtant because its a political win for trump (I, your favorite president just gave you money!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:*Man discovers land where people already are* Antifa Turkeesian posted:This veers hard into derail territory, but do you have any good reads for this? It sounds bananas on the face of it given the relative distances as compared with the viking landings in North America. This is pages back but there is absolutely no strong evidence that they could or did besides I think some experimental studies and an experiment or two showing that it was indeed possible to sail from one end to other using some of the ships they had with modern knowledge, though I am also fairly certain that the actual trade ships they had would have almost immediately eaten poo poo because sailing the Med is way different than sailing the Atlantic. The closest thing we have to "outside" contact and influence is some really interesting work looking at Polynesians, also some interesting trade dynamics going on near Alaska. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/1316155832053174272
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
that bizarre pelosi meltdown is a real "let them eat cake" moment
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:the point of not signing off on a clean stimiulus check is that its perhaps the strongest carrot to get republicans to agree to other things that are more improtant because its a political win for trump (I, your favorite president just gave you money!) Leaving aside the fact that it's a political win for the bad man, what is a higher priority than cash payments to the tens of thousands of people who can't like, buy food or pay their electric bill or afford a COVID test right now? Much less rent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Are two legal experts arguing about their exchange? I think "legal expert" is not a misleading way to describe the former attorney general of California, and a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. I'm enjoying their interaction, it's entertaining in an extremely dry way. edit: Now John Kennedy is up, he's entertaining in the same way that serious head trauma is entertaining. Wilbur Swain fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Leaving aside the fact that it's a political win for the bad man, what is a higher priority than cash payments to the tens of thousands of people who can't like, buy food or pay their electric bill or afford a COVID test right now? Much less rent. continued unemployment support so instead of giving them a one time cash payment that runs out in 1-2 weeks, they get $400/week for the next 6 months. funds to make coronavirus testing free for everyone. the direct stimulus payment is probably #4-5 on the list of priorities from a relief bill, both because its not targeted (most people get money, not just people who need it the most) and because its a one time payment. we also have no evidence that the senate would support a clean stimulus payment bill. like, I'd love to see the dems bring a clean unemployment extension to the table and force the Senate to ignore it. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Unless I've missed something huge, there is no clean stimulus check bill on the table, it's just one of Trump's random flails that he got spooked into making after he announced there would be no deal at all randomly on twitter. It's not like Democrats are refusing to do something, Pelosi just flubbed a really easy question about something that the Republicans would already never agree to in the first place
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
Wilbur Swain posted:I think "legal expert" is not a misleading way to describe the former attorney general of California, and a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. I'm enjoying their interaction, it's entertaining in an extremely dry way. No product of the conservative legal pipeline ends up a legal expert.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Leaving aside the fact that it's a political win for the bad man, what is a higher priority than cash payments to the tens of thousands of people who can't like, buy food or pay their electric bill or afford a COVID test right now? Much less rent. That would be something called "harm reduction", which is a complex academic concept that not many people have heard of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
There's no way Mitch has the votes for a clean bill of $1200 checks
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Unless I've missed something huge, there is no clean stimulus check bill on the table, it's just one of Trump's random flails that he got spooked into making after he announced there would be no deal at all randomly on twitter. It's not like Democrats are refusing to do something, Pelosi just flubbed a really easy question about something that the Republicans would already never agree to in the first place Yeah neither of these things is most likely ever going to happen because the Republicans in the Senate are lizard people. However, Trump might be able to pressure Mitch into getting something passed if the Democrats were also shouting about it, and a $1200 cash payment is the "lesser evil" ( I'm very clever ) over nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Yeah neither of these things is most likely ever going to happen because the Republicans in the Senate are lizard people. However, Trump might be able to pressure Mitch into getting something passed if the Democrats were also shouting about it, and a $1200 cash payment is the "lesser evil" ( I'm very clever ) over nothing. But why not start with something that would do even more good and still give Trump a win? Extending unemployment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
Associated Press posted:The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote to approve Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court — before her confirmation hearings have even ended.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Unironically the Republican strategy if Biden wins is to make sure no additional aid at all happens under any circumstances and pin the economic pain on the Democrats, and it's not clear to me if it's more likely the Democrats would be able to overcome their bullshit if new checks go out or not. I'd be willing to believe that the Republicans would be canny enough to cynically let the minimum amount of aid go out, but it would need to be hitting people's bank accounts like... already, if they were smart enough to do that, so I don't think they'd agree to one at this point. Lie about it maybe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 00:44
|
|