|
Killer robot posted:So it's of similar age to the phrase "cultural marxism," huh? Not disuputing that, but the existence of the phrase only means people believe in the phenomenon, not that it exists. But you do realize that a "hall pass" means that if the party is getting the numbers it needs to achieve a legislative priority, it won't sweat dissent from individual legislators whose constituents disapprove of the national party's stance and might punish them in the long term. Ok believe what you want man, none of the stories we're coming up with to explain away the inaction in the face of Republicans gerrymandering themselves into power and introducing legislation to overturn elections when it favors them are going to change what's happening. At this point it really doesn't matter why they don't pass voting protections, it's not happening and the reasons are academic. Defend the leadership online, don't defend them, whatever, it's not going to matter soon whether they get primaried and replaced or not, the window for action most likely ends in November anyway
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:Wait, so the timescale is *Entire Senate careers?!* The phrase being a decade long is not a lot of time on that scale. I think this in the end comes down to a question of faith: Under the current system, say we had 53 democratic senators right now, would BBB be passed? I say no, it would not. Would the discomfort Sinema is experiencing being the focus of so much ire for money be shared with three other Dems? Yes, it would. I’ve been voting since 1994 and we’re always just a little short, in the same way an alcoholic dad has the kind of bad luck that means he never keeps his promises. I have lost the faith, I’ve decided the product of the system is the intent of the system, and it requires a lot less explaining things to myself or getting mad because they disappointed me again. They will never not disappoint me because they don’t work for me, duh! Why would I get mad that somebody is buying a huge dinner and I don’t even get a roll? It ain’t my dinner, im not even allowed in the place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
selec posted:Under the current system, say we had 53 democratic senators right now, would BBB be passed? I say no, it would not. Would the discomfort Sinema is experiencing being the focus of so much ire for money be shared with three other Dems? Yes, it would. We definitely, unequivocally would have passed BBBA last year if we had won the 2020 Senate races in Maine, North Carolina, plus one other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:Wait, so the timescale is *Entire Senate careers?!* The phrase being a decade long is not a lot of time on that scale. Trump also didn't seem too interested in governing on issues Collins opposed him on. Like okay she helped kill skinny repeal but he gave so little of a poo poo about healthcare that he just told Paul Ryan to write whatever and it was nothing like what he promised his voters, so if you think Trump was honestly trying his best to keep faith with the people who voted for him I guess that explains your generous opinion of Democratic efforts. I guess we'll see if Sinema gets the same support Lieberman, Lipinski, Cuellar, Brown, Menendez, etc have. Not that it will matter by then. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Apr 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:So it's of similar age to the phrase "cultural marxism," huh? No and it's actually real lovely to equate speculation about the workings of political theatre to antisemitic smears invented by neo-Nazis It is very odd to me to see posters who unironically thought the Manchin Cycle was real get so het up about rotating villains, I wonder what the difference is How are u posted:We definitely, unequivocally would have passed BBBA last year if we had won the 2020 Senate races in Maine, North Carolina, plus one other. Actually we wouldn't have
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
That reminds me: Biden's favorite Republican rep, Fred Upton, has announced that he's retiring this term.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
selec posted:Those are terms of art that originated from within the legislative culture, not without. “Cultural Marxism” is a nonsense slur made up by people who hate both of the words in the phrase: hall passes, messaging bills, horse trading and so on are jargon from within the sausage factory. Let me reiterate here. The initial citation was that someone, facing personal blame and trying to deflect it to unnamed out of frame figures, was proof positive of the rotating villains. Instead of additional supporting evidence, I was presented with a gesture toward actual visible ways the sausage is made, but which do not in any way imply or require the existence of rotating villains. And now I'm being told that look, no further evidence is needed just look at where all the grand forces are clearly pointed. Even if you're absolutely, 100% right, even then, in what way has the conversation so far not been textbook conspiracy theory?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:
Only it turned out it wasn't the West Virginia voter who was getting played by The Manchin Cycle, it was the lanyards who thought they were too smart to be fooled.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
How are u posted:We definitely, unequivocally would have passed BBBA last year if we had won the 2020 Senate races in Maine, North Carolina, plus one other. We should have just won all of them. Definitely need to bench some democratic party leaders over their unequivocal loss. Put in a new capable whip. Can't just continuously field the same Timberwolves roster and expect something different.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Let me reiterate here. The initial citation was that someone, facing personal blame and trying to deflect it to unnamed out of frame figures, was proof positive of the rotating villains. Instead of additional supporting evidence, I was presented with a gesture toward actual visible ways the sausage is made, but which do not in any way imply or require the existence of rotating villains. And now I'm being told that look, no further evidence is needed just look at where all the grand forces are clearly pointed. Do you mean that all theories about strategic voting are conspiracy theory because they are a theory about a conspiracy? That's true but conspiracy theory usually implies the belief in a grand and impossible plan in the face of simpler explanations. I don't think "Maybe more people are opposed to this than just the public face of it" is not really on the level of jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Let me reiterate here. The initial citation was that someone, facing personal blame and trying to deflect it to unnamed out of frame figures, was proof positive of the rotating villains. An admission is pretty good evidence. It's not a slam dunk I guess, but writing off evidence that makes us uncomfortable as a convenient lie is pretty fraught but you do what you want. Killer robot posted:
If Bush came out and said "hey stop saying I did 9/11 when Dick Cheney planned it all and I just followed orders" yeah he could be lying but I'm not just going to take Cheney's word for it after that. But it's also not that kind of conspiracy. Politicians know when something isn't going to pass, it doesn't take an impossible intricate 9/11 conspiracy theory for someone who opposes a bill to go "oh whew Manchin just announced his opposition, I can safely vote for it now that it's dead anyway to get some positive news coverage" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Apr 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This is the same bounty bill as made the news a week or two ago. https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/05/politics/oklahoma-abortion-ban-bill/index.html No, they swapped out that one for a total ban bill with little fanfare. 10 years jail and $100,000 fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
Maybe this will finally force the democrat party to reign in their anti-abortion members like Biden, and force real federal protections.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 23:58
|
|
|
selec posted:I think this in the end comes down to a question of faith: If that's the case, then why even bother following politics news at all? Why are you spending your days reading discussions about what the Democratic legislature is doing? You're already convinced you know the outcome of any potentially-progressive bill, to the point of constructing a worldview in which that outcome is the only possible outcome, regardless of conditions. Why bother following the actual bills, their actual course through the Senate, or the actual votes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If that's the case, then why even bother following politics news at all? Why are you spending your days reading discussions about what the Democratic legislature is doing? You're already convinced you know the outcome of any potentially-progressive bill, to the point of constructing a worldview in which that outcome is the only possible outcome, regardless of conditions. Why bother following the actual bills, their actual course through the Senate, or the actual votes? I follow politics because it’s interesting and funny. It’s like being a fan of pro wrestling, you know it’s fake but man sometimes they really say some amazing poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 00:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:An admission is pretty good evidence. "Don't blame me, I'm just being singled out" is not a confession and is in fact the opposite of one. Sinema's vote is public record, what she wants to evade is being saddled with the blame for it by citing other nameless Dems who would have sank the bill even if she hadn't. She has good reason to say that if it's true, for obvious reasons. She has equally good reason to say that if it's false, and for exactly the same reason that she does if it's true. She loses nothing from saying it either way, so it's no more a "confession" than telling the interviewer that your biggest flaw is that you work too hard. That's what makes it strange you're hanging so much weight on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 00:07
|
|
|
How are u posted:Well, if that's the only time a Rotation is called for then maybe Sinema should stop complaining about the other Rotating Villains hiding behind her skirts and stick to the schedule! She's getting more heat than previous villains (Lieberman, Baucus) mainly because the script is more obvious now. Makes sense that her handlers promised she'd be somewhat protected from the blowback and she's pissy that it isn't turning out that way. Obama publicly praised Baucus lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
Anyone that believes politicians don't know how to coordinate with each other to protect certain members from uncomfortable votes is a loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
If Joe Biden truly wanted BBB he would never have asked the progressives to kill it. Regardless, this is all just an ideological dispute about whether we should care more about the results, which even Sarcastr0! agrees are mathematically inevitable given the nature of the party, or if some of our lovely leaders actually mean really well deep in their hearts.
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Apr 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 00:26
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:She's getting more heat than previous villains (Lieberman, Baucus) mainly because the script is more obvious now. Makes sense that her handlers promised she'd be somewhat protected from the blowback and she's pissy that it isn't turning out that way. He not only praised Baucus; he gave him control of the Senate version of the ACA at a time Baucus's chief of staff was a former lobbyist for Blue Cross. That former lobbyist was later given a key administration position by Obama to help implement the ACA, and was then reappointed by Biden to head up "Trump's" initiative to further privatize Medicare. She has vowed that by 2030 traditional Medicare will no longer exist, and will instead be fully privatized like Medicare Advantage & the new ACO scheme that started under Trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If that's the case, then why even bother following politics news at all? Why are you spending your days reading discussions about what the Democratic legislature is doing? You're already convinced you know the outcome of any potentially-progressive bill, to the point of constructing a worldview in which that outcome is the only possible outcome, regardless of conditions. Why bother following the actual bills, their actual course through the Senate, or the actual votes? This post doesn't seem to have much of a point beyond implying that other posters can either leave or be definitionally insincere. Why is a belief in the good intentions of the Democrats a requirement to participate in a discussion about political news? Like would you tell someone who believes all the dinosaurs are extinct that they cannot logically discuss dinosaurs unless they believe dinosaurs are actually still alive out there? That's dumb It is a discussion forum, not a wishcasting forum
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:"Don't blame me, I'm just being singled out" is not a confession and is in fact the opposite of one. Sinema's vote is public record, what she wants to evade is being saddled with the blame for it by citing other nameless Dems who would have sank the bill even if she hadn't. She has good reason to say that if it's true, for obvious reasons. She has equally good reason to say that if it's false, and for exactly the same reason that she does if it's true. She loses nothing from saying it either way, so it's no more a "confession" than telling the interviewer that your biggest flaw is that you work too hard. That's what makes it strange you're hanging so much weight on it. Eh that doesn't relieve her of blame in any way though. Even if she produced a signed confession from Chris Coons that he opposes drug price controls, that wouldn't make angry voters say "oh well we can keep Sinema then", it would just mean they'd want to vote out both. So the material motivation for her to lie isn't as strong as you say, and that's the only argument you have for dismissing her statement. Kinda weak. And there's plenty of reason her claim makes sense. Drug price controls could have been included in reconciliation in 2010 but wasn't even with 59 Dems. You've got pieces of poo poo like Bob Menendez who is for sale, or like Corey Booker who voted against drug reimportation in 2017. Sure you could pile improbable theories atop each other in a rickety mess to explain it all away and blame Sinema and only Sinema. Maybe it was opposite day when Menendez said he opposed drug price controls, maybe Booker and every Democrat who voted with him in 2017 magically got changed hearts the instant Sinema walked in the chamber, maybe Obama's identical twin replaced him the day he cut that deal to kill the public option and Medicare drug price negotiation. And maybe we'll finally get to kick that football if we just get rid of Kyrsten Sinema and only her. Maybe! Or maybe not and all those people still have the same views and priorities they had 5 years ago but can afford to keep quiet and let Sinema get all the negative attention since she's already out there stepping on rakes. Who can say really.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 00:48
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If that's the case, then why even bother following politics news at all? Why are you spending your days reading discussions about what the Democratic legislature is doing? You're already convinced you know the outcome of any potentially-progressive bill, to the point of constructing a worldview in which that outcome is the only possible outcome, regardless of conditions. Why bother following the actual bills, their actual course through the Senate, or the actual votes? I "knew" from the moment Trump got elected that he didn't have a perfect Canadian-style healthcare plan ready to go up his sleeve. However much I would have loved to believe he was a stable genius who knew more about healthcare than all the experts, I knew that it wasn't reality, and that whatever ACA replacement he finally shat out would suck rear end, and it did. I expect you probably knew it too. You might even have figured out that too many rural voters depended on Medicare expansion for Republicans to actually follow through on their repeal theater, but you still followed the legislation and commented on it and learned what was in it anyway, even though it just ended up confirming what you had already deduced right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If that's the case, then why even bother following politics news at all? Why are you spending your days reading discussions about what the Democratic legislature is doing? You're already convinced you know the outcome of any potentially-progressive bill, to the point of constructing a worldview in which that outcome is the only possible outcome, regardless of conditions. Why bother following the actual bills, their actual course through the Senate, or the actual votes? arguing with the people saying 'no, really, honestly, the NEXT people we sacrifice to the Republicans will make Manchin and Sinema play along with us,' and demonstrating that belief is a falsehood that continues to kill people at the border daily, has a minor but positive potential outcome. perhaps the next time they are asked to throw minorities under the bus in the hopes of appeasing the right, they will not enthusiastically pitch in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 01:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If that's the case, then why even bother following politics news at all? Why are you spending your days reading discussions about what the Democratic legislature is doing? You're already convinced you know the outcome of any potentially-progressive bill, to the point of constructing a worldview in which that outcome is the only possible outcome, regardless of conditions. Why bother following the actual bills, their actual course through the Senate, or the actual votes? If you believe that the Democrat Party exists to give progressives false hope, capture their political energy, and to absorb and destroy leftist causes, following what the party is up to is useful for deprogramming people who have been gaslit into believing the Democrats are interested in progressive policy or are even a force for good in politics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 01:44
|
|
|
White House to extend student loan pause through Augustquote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration plans to freeze federal student loan payments through Aug. 31, extending a moratorium that has allowed millions of Americans to postpone payments during the coronavirus pandemic, according to an administration official familiar with the White House’s decision-making. Not really a surprise since we weren't seeing the "you have to pay your loans next month" advertising campaign that they were doing last fall when they thought they'd be lifting the moratorium, but still a huge relief. Hopefully this means the moratorium is locked in until after the midterms because it'd be really loving stupidly suicidal to make everyone pay up just 9 weeks before an election, but never say never.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
selec posted:I mean this was said behind closed doors, it’s safe to assume she can mention Chris Coons and others by name when talking privately. I understand because I legit feel the same way. But serious question, don't you think that it's at least possible we feel that way because the lying media has tricked and manipulated us into it? I certainly didn't hear any of this news being posted around!: https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1510021375490199559 https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1511049384586264576 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If that's the case, then why even bother following politics news at all? Why are you spending your days reading discussions about what the Democratic legislature is doing? You're already convinced you know the outcome of any potentially-progressive bill, to the point of constructing a worldview in which that outcome is the only possible outcome, regardless of conditions. Why bother following the actual bills, their actual course through the Senate, or the actual votes? I realize that I'm the 20th person responding to this bad argument, but I want to say for me personally as well: Following political news is necessary if you want to ensure that after the current second party gets dog-walked out of power forever in the near future that you can understand and what best to do, who to dismiss forever and which methods will still be available as the ongoing collapse of a historical institution continues for reasons they decided themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 02:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:White House to extend student loan pause through August
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
papa horny michael posted:Maybe this will finally force the democrat party to reign in their anti-abortion members like Biden, and force real federal protections. States have jurisdiction in this matter. If courts rule there's no constitutional protections for abortion, there are limited to no federal options.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 04:28
|
|
|
Nah the feds have control over healthcare under the commerce clause That's how they're able to, for example, regulate state health insurance markets. They could pass a federal law to require states to allow abortions or any other healthcare. If a state tried to ban covid vaccines or Viagra they'd be slapped down. Biden in fact promised to get such an abortion rights law passed. It is very funny to see liberals accidentally argue that most of Obamacare is unconstitutional while they're trying to defend Democrats voting down the federal abortion rights bill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 05:01
|
|
|
perhaps by 'limited to no federal options' he meant 'limited to no federal options democrats are willing to try' (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 05:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah the feds have control over healthcare under the commerce clause SCOTUS would absolutely slap it down immediately, especially if they'd already ruled against constitutional protection for abortions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 05:17
|
|
|
i think discussion would go much better regarding politics if everyone agreed to never argue conterfactuals ever again (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 05:52
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:i think discussion would go much better regarding politics if everyone agreed to never argue conterfactuals ever again Be the change you want to see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 06:00
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Be the change you want to see. i make a point to never talk about conterfactuals because i have a hard enough time arguing about the world as it is, to say nothing of whatever dream world i conceive in a fit of pique
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 06:04
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:i make a point to never talk about conterfactuals because i have a hard enough time arguing about the world as it is, to say nothing of whatever dream world i conceive in a fit of pique You used a conterfactual argument in the post I quoted
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 06:07
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The biggest problem with the "Dems aren't talking about inflation or high prices" narrative is that they are talking about inflation and high prices. The way I see it, this is technically talking about it. A very "we see you, we hear you" kind of pitch that has no proposal, except for lowering drug prices somehow. If he had offered a plan of attack, like national rent control and price limits at the pump, then I'd be more worried about the media silencing his agenda.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 09:43
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:SCOTUS would absolutely slap it down immediately, especially if they'd already ruled against constitutional protection for abortions. You don't know that, it's entirely different reasoning from what the conservatives have been using in their dissents in abortion cases thus far. "The constitution does not forbid the states from banning abortion" ≠ "the constitution forbids the federal government from allowing it. " They just held that the Civil Rights Act is not only constitutional, but that its anti sex discrimination title applies to transgender rights as well, even though the constitution doesn't have those protections. Congress can create protections that aren't in the Constitution, that's well established. E: are you arguing that a federal abortion rights law is unconstitutional? Because that's wild and would make a whole lot of stuff unconstitutional as well like the Affordable Care Act or the Civil Rights Act depending on how you're getting there. Or are you arguing that it doesn't matter what the constitution says or means because SCOTUS is an unaccountable partisan superlegislature, totally makes, and will just make poo poo up with zero legitimacy. It's hard to tell because you seem to have subtly shifted your argument from "it's unconstitutional" to "SCOTUS would slap it down" which are two different claims VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Apr 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 11:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 02:49 |
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:The way I see it, this is technically talking about it. A very "we see you, we hear you" kind of pitch that has no proposal, except for lowering drug prices somehow. Oh god, please don't have us follow in the footsteps of Sweden: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58317555. The actual helpful thing to do would be to offer a huge increase in government owned/subsidized housing. Which would predictably fail to pass anyways 
Kalit fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Apr 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 12:57
|
|
