|
Liquid Communism posted:
Very true. What's odd to me is that in spite of this and Mitch delivering for the GOP time and time again, he remains really unpopular even among republicans. You'd think they'd be really happy with him given all the bullshit he pulls.
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Very true. What's odd to me is that in spite of this and Mitch delivering for the GOP time and time again, he remains really unpopular even among republicans. You'd think they'd be really happy with him given all the bullshit he pulls.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 12:51
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:I think the problem they have with him is that they feel he doesn't go far enough. This is their default position and it gets them what they want.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 13:00
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Very true. What's odd to me is that in spite of this and Mitch delivering for the GOP time and time again, he remains really unpopular even among republicans. You'd think they'd be really happy with him given all the bullshit he pulls. McConnell protects his caucus and absorbs the unpopularity from decisions by deflecting it from weaker members who can avoid comment or pass the buck. The law and its offerings were only a "shadow" or a vague reflection, a silhouette of the real thing to come. However, the "form" is the "image." It is the real thing, the true form, and accurate representation. It is the appearance of the reality itself. McConnell casts His shadow over the whole Republican Caucus in preparation of His coming to fulfill all of the reality of its symbolism, types and shadows. It is His shadow that is seen throughout the filibuster. He is the real object that produces the shadow. The reality is McConnell Himself. The New York Times has already spoken of copies and shadows in the Sunday Edition where the emphasis was on McConnell's views on the differences between earthly and heavenly sacrifices. Now he draws out the comparison between the sacrifices offered by the priests under the Law and the one perfect sacrifice of Christ. For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. When Mitch was first elected Senate Majority Leader, he told the other Republican caucus members, "Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, But a body You have prepared for Me; In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure. Behold, I have come To do Your will." The Republican caucus was disorganized after Bush and the collapse of the Gang of Eight. What did McConnell want? He desired perfect obedience, and He found perfect obedience to His will in the body and work of the rest of the caucus. McConnell came to do the will of the RNC that had been stifled by infighting and individual selfishness before. He stated this clearly the night before His vote in the Rose Garden. "Not My will, Your will be done" was the first sentence of his acceptance speech. McConnell was willinf to take the slings and arrows of controversy and accusations of hypocrisy to protect his flock; and the flock respected and followed him for it. Doing the will of the RNC was crucial in the life of McConnell and stamping out individual cowardice and incentives to rebel was necessary. To accomplish the will of the RNC, the Republican Caucus needed "a body." as the eternal symbol of anger and malice of the caucus. His political career could not die, because he had no aspirations for higher office. Therefore McConnell prepared a body for the public to hate. Only as a man could He fulfill his policy goals by dying as a bloody sacrifice. McConnell provided the caucus with a perfect body to fulfill His eternal purpose. Senator John Thune (R-SD) described the process in 2004 as such, "The problem of politically toxic votes in swing states has been solved. We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Mitch McConnell once for all. By one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Though this will make some Senators appear mindless or weak to voters, they will never be blamed for the harshness of the decision because they were simply follow McConnell. Mitch's sacrifice gave them true political freedom in a way nobody else had ever done before. It is one single sacrifice for all that can never be added to or be repeated. This has great implications for our salvation. It opened their eyes and inspired loyalty in one who would give away his political career, physical body, and public image for all of the caucus." Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) had a famous anecdote where he remembered McConnell preparing for a big legislative push. "Mitch is seen waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. Mitch is busy interceding on our behalf. But He is also patiently waiting until the very last person in the caucus trusts in Him for strategy and then He is coming in glory. He is not sitting in heaven wringing His hands. Nothing catches Him by surprise. Nothing. He is here on earth working for all of us so that we don't have to. He dives on every mine for us. The caucus is allowed to impute all our bad public relations moves on to Mitch and his polling dies in our place as our representative. Moreover, He also imputed all the perfect righteousness of a caucus that runs like a well-oiled machine to us."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 13:06
|
|
|
Leon, are you quoting an article here or have you started writing stuff that sounds like biblical apocalyptica fanfiction for some reason?
Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 13:39 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 13:31
|
|
|
Leon is taking religious materials in which Jesus acts as a scapegoat for the sins of humanity and applying them to the McConnell situation. It's loving beautiful.Killer robot posted:I'm not saying I have clear answers for those. I'm just saying that people who make bold counterfactuals that gloss over those points without examination probably aren't thinking hard about it. The original bold counterfactual in this thread, which Ella was arguing counter to, is that if Hillary had won McConnell would simply have been forced to seat her judges... somehow. All the talk about Bush and Gore is irrelevant because this is about McConnell. I agree with you that the bold counterfactual isn't very well supported, but it's been thoroughly examined in D&D for years now to the point that it is extremely old hat. Why we are relitigating 2016, I do not know. But I think this context is important to have when dismissing fairly well reasoned arguments that, even accepting the counterfactual Hillary win, there is no mechanism* to force McConnell to call votes for her judges. Been up and down your posts and I don't see you addressing this actual argument that was made at all. *being the same set of tools that we have to make Manchin do anything Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 13:42 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 13:33
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Why we are relitigating 2016, I do not know.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
I don't think she remembers this.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 13:53
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:I don't think she remembers this. She does not remember a lot of things, but especially this.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 13:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:She does not remember a lot of things, but especially this. Things like, 'are you my housekeeper'
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 14:01
|
|
|
Feinstein is like the problem with mental hospitals and guardianships. Reagan threw everyone out of the mental hospitals and closed them down because they were expensive, some people could never be cured, so they were essentially lifetime wards of the state, and there had been several high profile instances of neglect or abuse. They also dramatically curtailed the abiity to involuntarily hold someone for more than 8 hours. Guardianship is the same thing. After some cases of abuse, they made it virtually impossible to get a guardianship going against the will of the individual. The Senate is the ultimate mental guardianship case. If Grandma burns the house down every day and is only stopped by her daughter watching her 24/7 and she tries to shoot everyone who rings the doorbell, but she is cognizant enough to be self-aware and reject guardianship, then you can't get one established no matter how bad it gets until she becomes incapacitated or does it willingly. Everyone has been telling Feinstein to go willingly since 2018, but there is no way to get her out if she is unwilling outside of extreme circumstances. She is still cognizant enough to perform "most of the time" and know that she doesn't want to retire and especially be forced to retire. I think it is likely that she won't seek another full term and go out "on her own terms" rather than appear to be forced out, but who knows? At least it isn't a Strom Thurmond situation where he couldn't even move and had to be hauled out to the Senate floor in a wheelchair to raise a finger for every single vote and have a member of the Klan write all of speeches and press statements. And that situation was somehow tenable for 13 years (!!!) and he lived into his 100's. before dying in office.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 14:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1521608281969422336?s=21&t=nLYhPiCKzgtpt7cSg2uv0Q Lmao why is he bringing up Susan Sarandon? There’s so many more people with actual power that he could have words with but he’s irritated with Susan Sarandon? I do not have hope for the Democrats. This moment will probably be seen as the moment people stopped having faith in the democrats in the future. If they do nothing for the next six months except tell people to vote, oh man. It’s gonna be bad.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 14:31
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Through an election that was basically fixed by the Supreme Court. This is really where the die was cast imo, not 2016 or 2018 or anything else. 2000 established the precedent that close elections always go to the Republican thanks to the court who will in turn put more young conservatives on the court. It was an illegal coup against the rightfully elected president and Democrats not only let it happen but voted for Bush's judges, because they decided bipartisanship was more important than democracy. Well also every judge in the majority on Bush v Gore was confirmed by a Democratic senate (e: or most of them anyway, Reagan got the senate at one point so maybe there were one or two that couldn't be blocked), letting conservatives just have the courts was also a huge disaster, note that the one time the shoe was on the other foot a Republican senate refused to confirm the Democratic nominee because why would you hand your political opponents power over the unelected wizard council that dictates federal law and can also steal elections at will, how stupid can you be.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 14:32
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:https://twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1521608281969422336?s=21&t=nLYhPiCKzgtpt7cSg2uv0Q Blaming her rather than the living incarnation of everything they believe in blowing the easiest layup in electoral history is all they have.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 14:36
|
|
|
If only we had a guy like Eric Swalwell in congress who would do something instead of Rep Susan Sarandon what were we thinking
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 14:39
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Feinstein is like the problem with mental hospitals and guardianships. This has long been documented in the field of political science as an institutional flaw of Senates: the political longevity of individual Senators and the incumbent bias means that the most powerful Senators are the ones who are the most withered and decrepit of them all. Worse, as they age, they often become increasingly stubborn, and attempts to dislodge them may only strengthen their resolve. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Lmao why is he bringing up Susan Sarandon? There’s so many more people with actual power that he could have words with but he’s irritated with Susan Sarandon? Swalwell has had a thing against Susan Sarandon because she said Hillary was going to beat Trump no matter what, so everyone should not vote for her in 2016 and instead write in Bernie Sanders to show their displeasure with the primary process. Then, she claimed credit for Hilary losing and then backed away from claiming that. It's like 5-year old drama that some people are hanging on to. To be fair, Sarandon leans into it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 14:44
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Swalwell has had a thing against Susan Sarandon because she said Hillary was going to beat Trump no matter what, so everyone should not vote for her in 2016 and instead write in Bernie Sanders to show their displeasure with the primary process. Well, with so many psychopaths who blame one actress instead of the the Democratic Party, I don’t blame her for deciding to be their supervillain.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 14:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is really where the die was cast imo, not 2016 or 2018 or anything else. 2000 established the precedent that close elections always go to the Republican thanks to the court who will in turn put more young conservatives on the court. It was an illegal coup against the rightfully elected president and Democrats not only let it happen but voted for Bush's judges, because they decided bipartisanship was more important than democracy. In short, the Democrats have been controlled opposition since the dawn of the millennium.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Swalwell has had a thing against Susan Sarandon because she said Hillary was going to beat Trump no matter what, so everyone should not vote for her in 2016 and instead write in Bernie Sanders to show their displeasure with the primary process. I’m aware of her history. Swalwells tweet is just directing the blame for this to a private citizen who doesn’t have that much influence. It’s pathetic
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
Oxyclean posted:Are you being sarcastic? Cause what do people have to believe someone like that doesn't change their tune when it's politically convenient? Because Tim Kaine has been consistent about his beliefs and being against banning abortion? Because he believes in the separation of church and state like most religious Democratic politicians? By this logic, why should we believe that Omar Ilhan won't want to force women to wear head coverings or pray since she chooses to do so herself? Again, posting very misleading headlines about Tim Kaine's personal beliefs about abortion is disingenuous. Dumbo posters can't actually find a US Democratic Senator against abortion in their quest to equate Democrats with Republicans so they post these silly misleading headlines. Don't fall for it. small butter fucked around with this message at 15:09 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
Double post
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:08
|
|
|
Sarandon's been a poo poo-catcher for Clinton's loss for six years now, and idiots like Swalwell and other liberals who "have a thing" against Sarandon need to get over their compulsive needs to deflect blame. Liberals like that hate looking within so it's far easier to blame some external factor or person (Sarandon, Michael Moore in 2000, et al.) than to acknowledge that there were Obama-to-Trump voters (secret racists, all of them!) or that Sanders campaigned for Clinton more than she campaigned for herself.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
small butter posted:US Democratic Senator against abortion in their quest to equate Democrats with Republicans so they post these silly misleading headlines. Don't fall for it. Lujan (D-NM), Not Voting Warnock (D-GA), Not Voting Manchin (D-WV), Nay
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:15
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:I’m aware of her history. Swalwells tweet is just directing the blame for this to a private citizen who doesn’t have that much influence. It’s pathetic And they know it too because if she actually had all the power they say they'd be groveling and currying her favor like they do with Joe Manchin
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
Republicans are refusing to talk about the potential of Roe v Wade being overturned and are now claiming, "Republicans DO NOT want to and WILL NOT throw doctors and women in jail." They also say that all the state laws that make it a crime that are on the books are going to get looked at because they weren't "intended to be implemented as-is" and were part of a plan to get Roe overturned. So far, only James Lankford has said that he would be in favor of a nationwide ban at the federal level, but that only a few other Republican Senators agree with him. Here's the Republican strategy memo that was sent around the Senate yesterday: quote:The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) recognizes the decision will have major implications in this fall's midterms and the 2024 presidential race. The memo is its attempt to have its members speak to voters with a unified voice. quote:Senate Republicans on Tuesday avoided answering questions about outlawing abortion in the wake of a leaked draft Supreme Court opinion suggesting Roe v. Wade’s days are numbered. https://twitter.com/ArthurDelaneyHP/status/1521583697979486210 https://www.axios.com/senate-republicans-abortion-talking-points-bcea924a-c491-46b8-89f0-625e7216a3a7.html
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
small butter posted:Because Tim Kaine has been consistent about his beliefs and being against banning abortion? Didn't he sign a bunch of bullshit restrictions as governor that made it harder for Virginia women to get an abortion E: yep quote:Kaine said he supported "appropriate and reasonable checks on the right to abortion." He promised to uphold Virginia’s existing abortion restrictions, which included a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, a parental notification requirement, and restrictions on Medicaid funding. And he vowed to pass a ban on "partial-birth" abortions, with exceptions for a woman’s life and health — a promise that he later kept. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:20 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
Tnega posted:https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00065.htm Lujan had a stroke 5 days before this and was immobilized in the hospital. Warnock's plane was cancelled because of snow. Both of them cosponsored the bill. Joe Manchin is "pro-life, but doesn't want to overturn Roe or ban abortion" so who knows how that position logically came together, but he probably won't be a reliable vote.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:21
|
|
|
I will invoke once again the name of my Aunt, Rhode Island Democratic Party State Representative Patricia Serpa who, after coercing her now-ex-daughter-in-law into eugenicsing her unborn down's baby, went ahead and voted against abortion protections for women in Rhode Island.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
I enjoyed this Alex Pareene piece, and I think it covers a lot of topics that are discussed here frequently. https://theap.substack.com/p/the-institutionalists-dilemma?s=w In particular I liked this paragraph: Alex Pareene posted:To paraphrase our former president, I want to be clear: “Vote harder” is not a bad message because it’s untrue. If more people voted for Democrats they would win more elections, and my preference is that Democrats win more elections than Republicans. “Vote harder” is a bad message because it’s annoying, and annoying people is a bad way to make them want to vote for you. At this point, it’s also clear that it’s bad messaging because it’s insufficient. A larger Democratic majority next year might pass a law protecting abortion rights. Barring a massive sea change in how Democrats govern, that hypothetical Congressional majority has no hope whatsoever of protecting that law from the existing Supreme Court majority.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And they know it too because if she actually had all the power they say they'd be groveling and currying her favor like they do with Joe Manchin Yet another example of them kowtowing to the right of the party but being actively hostile to the left
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:23
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Lujan had a stroke 5 days before this and was immobilized in the hospital. Warnock's plane was cancelled because of snow. Both of them cosponsored the bill. Fair enough on Warnock/Lujan, but what do you mean "won't" be for Manchin, a vote that literally didn't matter because it required 60, and he went out of his way to vote no. When the objective is to "find a US Democratic Senator against abortion" if that vote doesn't count as evidence, I don't know what does. e: replaced "If" with "When" for readability.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:I enjoyed this Alex Pareene piece, and I think it covers a lot of topics that are discussed here frequently. If this isn’t a clear sign that Dems need to play hard hall and pack the courts, kill the filibuster, pass a ton of laws that open voting up and have federal oversight in all states, etc then we are just on the march to a fascist state. I’m not trying to be hyperbolic here, this is legit the path the US is in for the next 20 years. Hell, the republicans may not even need to use their special powers to enforce it but they will the second their backs are against the wall. …but Dems and their supporters are ultimately complicit in what is happening given the large number of Bush/Trump era decisions that were left unchallenged and unchanged.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
Tnega posted:Fair enough on Warnock/Lujan, but what do you mean "won't" be for Manchin, a vote that literally didn't matter because it required 60, and he went out of his way to vote no. if the objective is to "find a US Democratic Senator against abortion" if that vote doesn't count as evidence, I don't know what does. The reason is because the vote didn't matter, as you said. People who give any credit to Manchin at all assume this is a hall pass type vote where he can take credit for doing something that doesn't actually matter, but in the event of a vote where it did, he would vote with the party. I don't know why anyone would extend him the benefit of any doubt whatsoever, since he's clearly poo poo who would better be used for parts, but that's the reasoning for why that doesn't count. Incidentally, there are probably also shitdems who voted "yes" here that only did so because it didn't matter. It's a time honored tradition to say things to your constituents and pretend like you tried your best but gosh, just couldn't quite make it past the finish line this time. Maybe with more money...?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
Ershalim posted:The reason is because the vote didn't matter, as you said. People who give any credit to Manchin at all assume this is a hall pass type vote where he can take credit for doing something that doesn't actually matter, but in the event of a vote where it did, he would vote with the party. I don't know why anyone would extend him the benefit of any doubt whatsoever, since he's clearly poo poo who would better be used for parts, but that's the reasoning for why that doesn't count. I apologize for the hostility implied in the following post, but there is no way to type it out that doesn't sound hostile. If a voting record cannot be used as evidence for a politicians beliefs, does anything count as evidence?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
Tnega posted:I apologize for the hostility implied in the following post, but there is no way to type it out that doesn't sound hostile. If a voting record cannot be used as evidence for a politicians beliefs, does anything count as evidence? Maybe you should try looking at the context. What have they voted for when the votes actually mattered? Turns out, politics isn't actually a matter of just listening to press releases and what they print on their web site.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
small butter posted:Because Tim Kaine has been consistent about his beliefs and being against banning abortion? Because he believes in the separation of church and state like most religious Democratic politicians? By this logic, why should we believe that Omar Ilhan won't want to force women to wear head coverings or pray since she chooses to do so herself? I think it's a little more nuanced than that. Leaving aside actions like Kaine's signing the law to allow "Choose Life" license plates, or supporting parental notification for teens having abortions, there's a moral ambiguity issue that's common among Democratic politicians. Is there another medical procedure in which politicians feel compelled to make their position conditional? And then come up with tropes to try to satisfy all parties, like that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare"? Imagine a Democrat saying that he believes that interracial marriage is wrong, but that it's a private matter and he would never vote against it. Or that being gay is against the laws of God but he would never vote for criminalization. Such pols would be laughed out of public life forever; not even most GOP pols have continued to be that retro these days. But when it comes to abortion, we're supposed to honor those who personally believe that "killing babies" is wrong, but who don't vote against it, and who then leap onto their high horses touting women's rights to bodily autonomy.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
Tnega posted:I apologize for the hostility implied in the following post, but there is no way to type it out that doesn't sound hostile. If a voting record cannot be used as evidence for a politicians beliefs, does anything count as evidence? No one is saying voting record cannot be used. It's simply not dispositive or "proof" necessarily. If 49 dems vote yes on a bill and Manchin blocks it, we can at best be certain of Manchin's position.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Tnega posted:Fair enough on Warnock/Lujan, but what do you mean "won't" be for Manchin, a vote that literally didn't matter because it required 60, and he went out of his way to vote no. When the objective is to "find a US Democratic Senator against abortion" if that vote doesn't count as evidence, I don't know what does. Manchin explicitly says he is pro-life, but he also doesn't want to ban abortion and said he opposes a constitutional amendment banning abortion and overturning Roe. He's averaged around a 55% lifetime score for NARAL and has been as high as 77%. But, he also self-identifies as "pro-life." So, even though he has voted for many pro-choice measures, he is not a reliable supporter of abortion rights and won't be onboard with killing the filibuster for them. That is what I mean by "an unreliable vote." I'm not sure how you logically come to a position that abortion is murder, but also that you shouldn't do too much to stop it from happening. But, Manchin found a way (or... it could be possible that he is a political coward trying to appease both sides without pissing off many of his voters and the national party at the same time and is insincere. But, I can't imagine Joe Manchin being two-faced). See also this infamous picture where these two photos were both taken the same week: 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 21:58 |
|
|
Tnega posted:I apologize for the hostility implied in the following post, but there is no way to type it out that doesn't sound hostile. If a voting record cannot be used as evidence for a politicians beliefs, does anything count as evidence? Honestly I'm not sure. Of the dem/ind senators, 48 of 50 of them are either the author or co-sponsors of the bill in question here, so I don't know that there realistically are any democratic senators that can be said to be anti-abortion in practice? Manchin was not a co-sponsor, but I don't know who the other non-co-sponsor was (it wasn't Carper, Coons, or Sinema, who are my go-to poo poo-senators). My intention wasn't to defend the dems or anything, just to explain why the 3 people you listed aren't being seen as indicative of anti-abortion sentiment in the party. I'd say that their lack of doing anything productive is damning enough regardless of what their beliefs might actually be. Intent doesn't mean anything to me when it comes to a government body -- the system's purpose is what it does.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 15:42
|
|