|
Feldegast42 posted:155,485,078 people voted for president in 2020. 15% of that is a *mere* 23,322,761 people. What percentage of people with student loan debt do you think would refuse to vote for Democrats in '22 or '24 without loan forgiveness? I'm going to hazard a guess that it's less than "absolutely all of them." \/\/\/\/\/ I basically agree with this. The electoral impact of either policy will be minimal. Whatever student loan policy is put in place by January, it'll be because it's the policy they want to put out, not because of political concerns either way. They'll make changes to payment structure probably but I don't anticipate any large-scale forgiveness. \/\/\/\/\/\/ Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Nov 5, 2021 |
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
There's pretty strong evidence that policy doesn't actually drive out new voters in favor of a candidate as a reward. That is a problem with "give everyone a check and watch voter turnout skyrocket" theory. The same thing applies in the opposite, though. Unless it had a direct negative impact on people, it seems very unlikely that there would be any political penalty unique to loan forgiveness that any other large spending plan wouldn't have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe I'm mixing up my posters but IIRC Xombie is not some CSPAM NoJoe dirtbag left BernardBro. They've been one of the biggest Democrat boosters for years, vote blue, incremental progress, long arc of history, a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump etc What's the solution though? I've ties to four countries, and only one is doing "well" politically (Ireland); two are "could be worse, and it might be before long" (US and Germany), and one is borderline catastrophic (Poland). And I could nitpick even Ireland, and point out potential flaws that could make me go "gently caress it". Disengaging doesn't make any of the prospects better. Neither does wishful thinking, followed by disappointment. Feldegast42 posted:155,485,078 people voted for president in 2020. 15% of that is a *mere* 23,322,761 people. Nobody is saying that. The question is: depending on whether student debt relief is or is not passed & communicated relative to other policies, what is the net impact in terms of votes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:What percentage of people with student loan debt do you think would refuse to vote for Democrats in '22 or '24 without loan forgiveness? I'm going to hazard a guess that it's less than "absolutely all of them." Considering the razor thin margins that Democrats are winning or losing by at this point, I would hazard a guess that it's between "enough of them to matter" and "enough of them that they'll regret it".
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
This thread would argue that a chicken in every pot was a horrible campaign slogan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:What percentage of people with student loan debt do you think would refuse to vote for Democrats in '22 or '24 without loan forgiveness? I'm going to hazard a guess that it's less than "absolutely all of them." With how the vote from people under 45 collapsed for the democrats in Virginia I'm going to hazard a guess that its more than the party can afford if they ever want to hold a scrap of power again morothar posted:Nobody is saying that. The question is: depending on whether student debt relief is or is not passed & communicated relative to other policies, what is the net impact in terms of votes? My response is -- who gives a poo poo, and its the right thing to do? And given the democrats are in freefall for being an ineffective and useless party, maybe a genuine win for their base may pay off in the end? The democrats have tried inaction for 40 years to get their agenda passed. That has failed. Maybe they should throw caution to the wind and actually try doing something for once, as a test? Feldegast42 fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Ok now do SALT. yeah a key thing here is that by the logic being advanced on student loan debt here, SALT is simply unforgivable. Not only is it a tax break aimed overwhelmingly at the wealthy:  It's also a tax break that's aimed overwhelmingly at non-swing states: quote:The deduction favors high-income, high-tax states like California and New York, which together receive nearly one-third of the deduction’s total value nationwide. Six states—California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, and Pennsylvania—claim more than half of the value of the deduction. So the idea that "electoral impact" is the overriding concern of what Democrats are choosing to pass policy on is clearly nonsense. I do not think there's a sensible argument in favor of SALT deduction cap repeal, though I'd love to see someone try. And while many people arguing against student loan debt relief here are also opposed to SALT, the key is that SALT is happening, and student loan debt relief is not. So clearly it's not about electoral impact. It's about power, repaying donors, and, if you squint in the right light, maybe about messaging. So responding to "why don't Dems pass student loan debt relief" with a bunch of numbers about how it won't ACTUALLY change enough votes to count is not only besides the point, to many people it's going to feel like you're actively moving the conversation away from the real concerns they have (Democrats are captured by plutocrats and the ultrawealthy, and are willing to spend money to help them and not anyone else, and that loving blows and is fully demoralizing) to a fake idea of electoral politics that no one in power is actually relying on. At best these arguments reinforce the thin justification Democrats offer to not do helpful things, and I don't see how literally anyone benefits from running that kind of cover for electeds. To be frank, I started this conversation feeling like failing to do anything on student loan debt relief was an understandable if depressing outcome of gridlock in Washington, and I've come away thinking that it's a complete moral failure to not do so and that the Democrats are so captured by the wealthy as to make voting for them meaningless for implementing policy. I'll still vote for them to reduce the chance of me or those I love getting legally hate-crimed by state actors, but I doubt I'm gonna send another cent their way or knock doors for any. The people who think they're explaining politics in a sensible and reasonable way in here should probably consider that they've actually managed to polarize a lot of people in this conversation against dems, lmao. morothar posted:The question is: depending on whether student debt relief is or is not passed & communicated relative to other policies, what is the net impact in terms of votes? I would suggest, respectfully, that this is actually not the question most people are talking about in here, and the fact that you're answering it like this is why people are getting increasingly frustrated (most people are really talking about : "Why the gently caress can't dems pass student loan debt relief," and the answer is "electoral impact," and then the question is "so why is SALT getting passed," and I don't really see an answer to that one that isn't "dems aren't willing to message positively on student loan debt relief" or "dems are captured by the wealthy").
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
Valentin posted:yeah a key thing here is that by the logic being advanced on student loan debt here, SALT is simply unforgivable. SALT is undoubtedly a worse policy than student loan forgiveness and an even more regressive government expenditure. It's also "hard to understand" (at the level of engagement most voters are willing to give to public policy) so most people won't get the memo that it's an upper class tax cut (one that should have been offset by other tax increases in the bill, but those got stripped out, so here we are.) Just out of curiosity could anybody hazard a guess as to what kind of rate reduction you could get for the lower two or three tax brackets, or how much you could increase the standard deduction, for the amount of money the Dems are putting into SALT? Because those would be popular policies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
I do wonder if people see SALT as a tax decrease therefore it is good, while forgiving debt is spending therefore it is bad. Americans have been conditioned that any tax break is a good thing. In reality it should hurt the Democrats to pass SALT and ignore debt relief. They have completely internalized that Americans will see anything they do as bad, and as a result anything they do is bad. They need to do things because they are the right things to do and the electorate be damned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Republicans are going to powerbomb Dems through a table over SALT when it goes through. It will be explained as a corrupt payout to rich coastal elitists and this time it's actually gonna be true
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I do wonder if people see SALT as a tax decrease therefore it is good, while forgiving debt is spending therefore it is bad. This is the exact reason the U.S. has the most progressive tax code in the developed world by far. Every other OECD country has broadbased (aka regressive) taxes to fund a large redestributive spending system. The U.S. "spends" money via the tax code because that is somehow more acceptable to people in modern times. The other OECD countries got their VATS and 35% tax rates for the lower class implemented in the post-war period in conjunction with their redestributive spending systems, so it is normalized and there isn't a taboo about direct spending since they are seen as interconnected. The U.S. has set up all their taxing and spending systems incrementally and not part of a cohesive system, so it is much easier to "spend" a few thousand dollars here and there through the tax code. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I think the House moderates might just be bad at politics. Is there a moderate (heh) chance that the CBO score also helps preempt any stupidity that Manchin and Sinema (and anyone silently encouraging them) want to engage in?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:SALT is undoubtedly a worse policy than student loan forgiveness and an even more regressive government expenditure. It's also "hard to understand" (at the level of engagement most voters are willing to give to public policy) so most people won't get the memo that it's an upper class tax cut (one that should have been offset by other tax increases in the bill, but those got stripped out, so here we are.) Cool! So we can agree that a policy being a regressive expenditure or targeted at a specific group isn't actually a reason for it to be passed or not to pass, and can discard all the analysis about what loving percent of the electorate has debt at a sufficient level to have their pro-Dem switch flipped by student loan debt relief, because that's not actually what makes policy happen or not happen. If SALT can pass and student loan debt relief can't get off the ground, then the primary concerns in play would seem to be 1) what Democrats want to pass and 2) what they think they can successfully message on (or, in the case of SALT, successfully avoid messaging on). At that point, I have two questions: why should anyone at all be happy that Democrats have more political will to pass SALT than student loan debt relief, and who exactly benefits from this analysis that SALT sucks but is easily passable, but student loan debt is impossible for political reasons? What point is there to break down these numbers about what is and isn't electorally plausible based on demographics and debt burdens, when those aren't actually relevant for understanding what policies get implemented and how?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1456671672325578756 I guess Pelosi didn't actually check if she had the votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Valentin posted:Cool! So we can agree that a policy being a regressive expenditure or targeted at a specific group isn't actually a reason for it to be passed or not to pass, and can discard all the analysis about what loving percent of the electorate has debt at a sufficient level to have their pro-Dem switch flipped by student loan debt relief, because that's not actually what makes policy happen or not happen. If SALT can pass and student loan debt relief can't get off the ground, then the primary concerns in play would seem to be 1) what Democrats want to pass and 2) what they think they can successfully message on (or, in the case of SALT, successfully avoid messaging on). I'm not asking you to "be happy" about anything. As is the case with many forums arguments, we don't seem to disagree about anything but how big the difference between our two lovely political parties is. I've said multiple times now that I think Biden just genuinely has no interest in large-scale forgiveness student loans. My argument has just been that this policy (which I am not arguing is a good policy) is not going to single-handedly cost them every election from here to eternity. (Nor would forgiving the loans.) e: I guess we also disagree about how effective leftists withholding their votes is in affecting the Democratic Party platform. But the thrust of your post is correct, and like LT2012 has argued rather convincingly, none of this poo poo really matters electorally anyway and Biden/the Dems will sink or swim based on poo poo they have no short-term control over like corporate logistics and gas prices and Twitter outrages. e: A point of clarification: I realize I did earlier call full loan forgiveness a "bad policy"; that was kind of a misstatement and I just meant that it wasn't as good of a policy as distributing 1.7T in some other, less divisive, more progressive way. But if Biden can juice the economy with a trillion dollars without getting Congress involved, that would be a good thing to do. And although I really think Biden is straight up pro-Student-Debt, I wonder if Schumer etc will start putting more pressure on him once the bills are passed. (Would the executive unilaterally spending hundreds of billions on mostly college graduates piss off Joe Manchin, a conservative Senator who represents West Virginia, which has literally the least college graduates of any state?) Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
morothar posted:What's the solution though? I've ties to four countries, and only one is doing "well" politically (Ireland); two are "could be worse, and it might be before long" (US and Germany), and one is borderline catastrophic (Poland). And I could nitpick even Ireland, and point out potential flaws that could make me go "gently caress it". As for what the voter can do if they don't well I don't have an answer for ya. Telling people to vote regardless of what politicians do seems to me to undermine the theoretical justification for democracy no? The theory of democracy is that voters express their preferences by voting for a platform they want enacted and not voting for platforms they don't want enacted. Any issue that doesn't affect voting behavior cannot in theory be addressed through the democratic process since there's no way to put in politicians who will do it or remove those who won't. If people vote back in politicians no matter what then the political system is incapable of addressing any of their needs since their needs have no effect on who gets elected and what they do. If you're going to tell people to vote in the same rulers forever no matter what then democracy doesn't exist and you may as well cut the crap and go back to monarchy. At least then you have the stability of always knowing who is next in line and not getting a fascist cheeto monster in every other term. I mean sometimes you get bad luck and the heir to the throne is stupid or crazy but there's ways to deal with that and sideline them with a regency council or whatever if you have the time to prepare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Republicans are going to powerbomb Dems through a table over SALT when it goes through. It will be explained as a corrupt payout to rich coastal elitists and this time it's actually gonna be true Ohhh yeah. Republicans are going to make sure everyone loving knows that liberals are rich coastal elite hypocrites who got in and passed tax cuts only for other rich coastal elites after they attacked tax cuts that gave you $50 because Trump also gave too much to the rich https://mobile.twitter.com/SenatorRomney/status/1455929583899922442 Luckily Democrats have the slam dunk retort "uhhhh you stupid toothless hicks were supposed to be too dumb to understand our tax policy and notice who was getting all the money"!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:37
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:I guess Pelosi didn't actually check if she had the votes. Either that or she's actually trying the "dare moderates to kill it for real" strategy that's been suggested here before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ohhh yeah. Republicans are going to make sure everyone loving knows that liberals are rich coastal elite hypocrites who got in and passed tax cuts only for other rich coastal elites after they attacked tax cuts that gave you $50 because Trump also gave too much to the rich What a horrendous own goal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:(Would the executive unilaterally spending hundreds of billions on mostly college graduates piss off Joe Manchin, a conservative Senator who represents West Virginia, which has literally the least college graduates of any state?) Ok, now do SALT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ohhh yeah. Republicans are going to make sure everyone loving knows that liberals are rich coastal elite hypocrites who got in and passed tax cuts only for other rich coastal elites after they attacked tax cuts that gave you $50 because Trump also gave too much to the rich Was Mitt going to vote for it either way?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I've said multiple times now that I think Biden just genuinely has no interest in large-scale forgiveness student loans. My argument has just been that this policy (which I am not arguing is a good policy) is not going to single-handedly cost them every election from here to eternity. (Nor would forgiving the loans.) I guess I simply don't understand, if the bolded section represents the core of your argument, what the point is in chasing this argument to its absolute final end where everyone agrees that student loan debt relief as an individual policy probably has an indeterminate electoral outcome (potentially negative in pissing people off, potentially beneficial in activating uninterested or demoralized voters, but ultimately, and here is the key, largely unknowable because the effect is based on a million other factors), but we all agree that it's the kind of thing that should pass in an ideal world. I don't see how pursuing that to its bitter end is funny, insightful, or advances our understanding of American politics. This all started based on a very long post with lots of numbers (which I know you didn't write) which purported to demonstrate why student loan debt relief wouldn't happen because it wouldn't be electorally impactful. Since we all seem to agree that whether or not it becomes policy has nothing to do with that, I just don't get what this conversation is about or why it's necessary to fully pin down Which Policies Are Electorally Sound when we all agree that's a shell game to begin with, which probably means it's time for me to listen to my own arguments above and stop posting until we return to something where discussion will actually be interesting. Valentin fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
https://www.rawstory.com/fbi-project-veritas/ According to the New York Times, the searches were related to an investigation into how the personal diary of President Joe Biden's daughter, Ashley Biden, was stolen just ahead of the 2020 presidential election. "Federal agents in New York conducted the court-ordered searches on Thursday — one in New York City and one in suburban Westchester County — at places linked to people who had worked with the group and its leader, James O'Keefe," writes the Times. "Project Veritas did not publish Ms. Biden's diary, but dozens of handwritten pages from it were posted on a right wing website on Oct. 24, 2020, at a time when President Donald J. Trump was seeking to undermine Mr. Biden's credibility by portraying his son, Hunter, as engaging in corrupt business dealings." A member of the Biden family contacted law enforcement officials about the diary's theft and a Department of Justice investigation into the matter began shortly afterward
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Ok, now do SALT. Manchin, being a lovely piece of poo poo, has not made a peep about the SALT deduction, while he has successfully gotten a ton of education spending stripped from the reconciliation bill. Valentin posted:I guess I simply don't understand, if the bolded section represents the core of your argument, what the point is in chasing this argument to its absolute final end where everyone agrees that student loan debt relief as an individual policy probably has an indeterminate electoral outcome (potentially negative in pissing people off, potentially beneficial in activating uninterested or demoralized voters, but ultimately, and here is the key, largely unknowable because the effect is based on a million other factors), but we all agree that it's the kind of thing that should pass in an ideal world. I don't see how any of that is funny, insightful, or advances our understanding of American politics. e: below post: Gumball Gumption posted:Mellow Seas agrees with you but is locked in a false prison of the two party system so the assumption is that if you bail on the Dems than you're going Republican or at least allowing them to win. Gumball Gumption posted:The idea of any new political movement shifting things or any grand sweeping gesture and stone wall getting progressive wins is understandably seen as impossible because well, America is bad at that. I think it's a doomerism of a sort because it forces you into arguing that we don't deserve good things because that's become a fact in your paradigm. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
Mellow Seas agrees with you but is locked in a false prison of the two party system so the assumption is that if you bail on the Dems than you're going Republican or at least allowing them to win. The idea of any new political movement shifting things or any grand sweeping gesture and stone wall getting progressive wins is understandably seen as impossible because well, America is bad at that. I think it's a doomerism of a sort because it forces you into arguing that we don't deserve good things because that's become a fact in your paradigm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Was Mitt going to vote for it either way? Of course not, but that's not the point being made. Posters trying to cope by going "repubs love tax cuts for rich people, they can't argue against this without moving their king into checkmate" are incorrect in assuming this won't be weaponized by Republican politicians. They're the ones who fuckin axed SALT deductions in the first place
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Was Mitt going to vote for it either way? No his criticism of tax cuts for the rich is made in bad faith, but it is nonetheless accurate and worse for Dems he and the Republicans are going to make sure voters know about it despite Democrats' hopes that we're all too busy eating McDonald's and jacking off to pornhub to know what was in the bill
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Baronash posted:What a horrendous own goal. Is that w/ a cap or assuming there isn't one on the SALT repeal? CRFB is a bunch of fucksticks and it's Mitt Romney, so I'm not inclined to trust their analysis, but based on https://www.crfb.org/blogs/salt-cap-repeal-does-not-belong-build-back-better they assuming an unbounded SALT repeal which Bernie already said "gently caress you" to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Republicans are going to powerbomb Dems through a table over SALT when it goes through. It will be explained as a corrupt payout to rich coastal elitists and this time it's actually gonna be true VitalSigns posted:Ohhh yeah. Republicans are going to make sure everyone loving knows that liberals are rich coastal elite hypocrites who got in and passed tax cuts only for other rich coastal elites after they attacked tax cuts that gave you $50 because Trump also gave too much to the rich Nah, the Republican party is in favor of SALT and it was a huge controversy that nearly sunk the 2017 Tax bill. The only reason they did it was because reconciliation rules required them to make up the revenue for the 10-year window if they wanted to bring the corporate and top income rates down. The NRCC, Republican Party of New Jersey, and RNC all released statements blasting Josh Gottheimer for "failing to provide much needed relief to taxpayers" when the initial blueprint agreement came out and didn't include any SALT changes. Here's an article from 2017 about how it almost sunk the Trump tax cuts: quote:SALT Reduction Becomes Major Sticking Point In Tax Overhaul. quote:Ryan faced a revolt in his own caucus after many GOP lawmakers voted against the measure out of concern the tax bill would eliminate the deduction for state and local taxes, or SALT. That tax break is especially popular — and valuable — in high-tax states such as New York, New Jersey and California. quote:Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, had acknowledged the concerns from pro-SALT lawmakers and said they'll have to be addressed somehow. Republican candidates in NJ, Texas, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and several other states are already running on pro-SALT platforms for 2022. And Republicans were running on it in previous midterms AGAINST Trump. https://twitter.com/BobHugin/status/1037452813918457862 Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The only reason they did it was because reconciliation rules required them to make up the revenue for the 10-year window if they wanted to bring the corporate and top income rates down. drat! Those rules again. Someone should change them sometime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Nah, the Republican party is in favor of SALT and it was a huge controversy that nearly sunk the 2017 Tax bill. The only reason they did it was because reconciliation rules required them to make up the revenue for the 10-year window if they wanted to bring the corporate and top income rates down. Oh yeah good point, really important that Democrats are looking out for Josh Gottheimer
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Of course not, but that's not the point being made. Posters trying to cope by going "repubs love tax cuts for rich people, they can't argue against this without moving their king into checkmate" are incorrect in assuming this won't be weaponized by Republican politicians. They're the ones who fuckin axed SALT deductions in the first place Boy I sure hope the party using rising populism to their advantage doesn't point out this discrepancy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:drat! Those rules again. Someone should change them sometime. Go back and ask the Republicans why they didn't. The Byrd reconciliation rules are law, but they could have abolished the filibuster and repealed it. They almost sank the 2017 tax cut bill over it, so I'm not sure why they didn't when it almost killed the one significant piece of legislation they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Go back and ask the Republicans why they didn't. The Byrd reconciliation rules are law, but they could have abolished the filibuster and repealed it. They almost sank the 2017 tax cut bill over it, so I'm not sure why they didn't when it almost killed the one significant piece of legislation they wanted. Because they're not the ones in power? Are republicans in the year 2017 using some sort of time machine mind ray to control democrats in the year 2021? Is that what you're claiming?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Because they're not the ones in power? Are republicans in the year 2017 using some sort of time machine mind ray to control democrats in the year 2021? Is that what you're claiming? Go back and reread the post. Seems like you missed something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Because they're not the ones in power? Are republicans in the year 2017 using some sort of time machine mind ray to control democrats in the year 2021? Is that what you're claiming? Where do you think Havana Syndrome comes from?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
e: ^^^^^ dammitSharkie posted:Because they're not the ones in power? Are republicans in the year 2017 using some sort of time machine mind ray to control democrats in the year 2021? Is that what you're claiming? Ohhh, so that's what Havana Syndrome is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Go back and ask the Republicans why they didn't. The Byrd reconciliation rules are law, but they could have abolished the filibuster and repealed it. They almost sank the 2017 tax cut bill over it, so I'm not sure why they didn't when it almost killed the one significant piece of legislation they wanted. You really don't know why they didn't kill a rule that didn't actually stop them from doing what they wanted? Do you think maybe it might be because the rule didn't actually stop them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
My new theory is that Havana Syndrome is a loyalty test for think tankers, natsec reporters and lanyards. Rather than an indefensible war in Iraq promoted by transparent liars they’re forced to defend if they want to keep getting a paycheck, they’ve decided to haze this generation of lickspittles and sort out the ones that won’t fall in line by inventing a transparently, comedically fake explanation for “raided the minibar” but unless you go along with it you’ll be kicked out of the Blob and the job security that goes along with it. JK I think
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
There's one group that won't stfu about Havana Syndrome in D&D and it sure ain't the libs e: I mean, I totally get how it's funny. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2021 19:22
|
|