|
It’s safe to assume any major commercial project has huge levels of tech debt. Rewriting stuff that (for the most part) works acceptably right now is very hard to push through
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It was well understood that this would be the outcome. Well, yes, that's exactly my point. The Supreme Court recognized that Congress would be completely toothless on that particular issue, and therefore they could do as they liked without fear of real political pushback.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
I wrote so much code Elon keep me here I printed it up so you can count the lines // afahfzjfzjgdjgzjgzzdJfNcz // khxkgxcnHfzjfzjgzjgzjvxjvxmvz [Etc]
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 02:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Well, yes, that's exactly my point. The Supreme Court recognized that Congress would be completely toothless on that particular issue, and therefore they could do as they liked without fear of real political pushback. Sure but that admits the Supreme Court didn’t rule based on the intent of the founding fathers or what is written in the constitution. They ruled based on “gently caress you” and “eat poo poo”. To believe in their legitimacy is to be (at best) willfully dense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 03:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1592287718926651395
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 03:44
|
|
|
Heard rumblings that Governor BIG JIM Justice might be interested in Manchin's seat. He is a living caricature of a 19th century coal magnate but he'd be a shoe-in for Senator if he runs. On the other hand he is old, and fat, and probably 40% coal dust and industrial chemicals by volume, so the WV GOP might just opt for someone more likely to survive through their full term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
Ither posted:More details GOP might have been willing to do this in the lame duck just to kill the issue, but in the wake of the midterms this would be letting the dems deliver on their otherwise toothless claim to defend America's collapsing civil rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 06:14
|
|
|
Ither posted:More details This bill looks pretty lovely tbh? If I'm reading it right, the bill is basically like the Dobbs decision where states can straight up ban SSM again if they want to, but hey you're still free to spend your time and money driving to another state to get the marriage you want! Plus it's full of religious liberty protections which are just another hateful roadblock that same sex couples have to deal with. Also, way to poo poo on polyamorous relationships for no reason at #4 there. Just to top it off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 07:52
|
|
|
Disappointing, but not entirely surprising to see Biden claim that they wont be able to pass abortion-rights legislation. I guess i'm surprised to see him say this so close to the elections https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna57038 quote:President Joe Biden said Monday that he did not expect Democrats to have enough votes in Congress to be able to pass legislation codifying Roe v. Wade Well, maybe next election cycle they'll get around to it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 13:27
|
|
|
It's a real shame that at no point after Roe v Wade was overturned, the Democrats didn't have any way to codify abortion rights into law. I mean, it's not like they would have attempted to use the issue as a cudgel to try to get people to vote for them in the midterms and then act surprised when they lost, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 13:37
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:Disappointing, but not entirely surprising to see Biden claim that they wont be able to pass abortion-rights legislation. I guess i'm surprised to see him say this so close to the elections Democrats will never pass abortion legislation. It’s too useful of a wedge issue to drive tournout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
davecrazy posted:Democrats will never pass abortion legislation. It’s too useful of a wedge issue to drive tournout. Not sure if i'm missing  but that's what people said about republicans overturning roe v wadepersonally i think they'd have better turnout if they delivered on their promises, or at least made an honest attempt at doing so
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 13:51
|
|
|
If they insist on keeping the filibuster then no, they don’t have the 60 votes to pass abortion rights
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 14:16
|
|
|
Randalor posted:It's a real shame that at no point after Roe v Wade was overturned, the Democrats didn't have any way to codify abortion rights into law. I mean, it's not like they would have attempted to use the issue as a cudgel to try to get people to vote for them in the midterms and then act surprised when they lost, right? They attempted to do that and did not get enough votes to break the filibuster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 14:18
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:Not sure if i'm missing People have short memories. Delivering on promises is good for the next election. Letting the issues remain a problem works every single time. If the GOP were smart at winning elections they would find the 10 GOP senators least likely to face blowback over codifying abortion rights, and offer it up to the Democrats, taking it off the table for 2024. That alone probably wins them the presidency in 2024.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:Disappointing, but not entirely surprising to see Biden claim that they wont be able to pass abortion-rights legislation. I guess i'm surprised to see him say this so close to the elections It's not even slightly surprising. They had 48 votes for overturning the filibuster to codify Roe, and they gained less than two seats in the midterms, which means they still have fewer than 50 votes for it. It's simple arithmetic. It's not like they kept it a secret, either. The administration was very open going into this election that they needed to gain two seats to get to 50 votes. https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1573361187491921920 https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1589315428114907139
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 14:21
|
|
|
It's a shame President Biden didn't learn about how the senate works in his what like 40 years in it? Because he's been very clear: two more senators gets us abortion rights: https://mobile.twitter.com/joebiden/status/1584556593978408964 https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/23/biden-promises-to-codify-roe-if-two-more-democrats-are-elected-to-the-senate.html https://apnews.com/article/biden-congress-joe-manchin-kyrsten-sinema-los-angeles-23996d96d891503e0b868396b0ff3792 I guess someone tricked him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 14:21
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:It's a shame President Biden didn't learn about how the senate works in his what like 40 years in it? Because he's been very clear: two more senators gets us abortion rights: He only got one more senator. One is less than Two. Hope that helps
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 14:31
|
|
|
It's pretty easy to make a promise when you set a condition for that promise that's very likely not gonna happen. Did anyone seriously think that dems would gain 2 senators *and* keep control of the house?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 14:33
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:Not sure if i'm missing Republicans actually believe their spiel. Maybe banning abortion was just a flag to rally around in the 1970s because religious schools had to pay tax if they stayed segregated, but after 40 years of the drumbeat, most of them are ride or die, to the point no party figure can ever rise if they don't howl the same tune and push it when in power. Meanwhile, Democrats are forever afraid of scaring their donors, spooking the conservatives in their party, and thus freely allow and praise the 'pro life' members of the party, to the point of putting them on the presidential loving ticket. Sometimes people actually believe the insane/evil poo poo they say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 14:36
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:He only got one more senator. One is less than Two. Hope that helps Yeah I'm realizing now that I forgot to quote FlamingLiberal's post that they need 60 senators for abortion, which mine was intended to be in reply to. Posting error.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 14:36
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:This bill looks pretty lovely tbh? If I'm reading it right, the bill is basically like the Dobbs decision where states can straight up ban SSM again if they want to, but hey you're still free to spend your time and money driving to another state to get the marriage you want! Plus it's full of religious liberty protections which are just another hateful roadblock that same sex couples have to deal with. I believe online marriage is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:Disappointing, but not entirely surprising to see Biden claim that they wont be able to pass abortion-rights legislation. I guess i'm surprised to see him say this so close to the elections Not sure how you want them to codify abortion rights legislation when they might not control the House.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 14:57
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Republicans actually believe their spiel. Maybe banning abortion was just a flag to rally around in the 1970s because religious schools had to pay tax if they stayed segregated, but after 40 years of the drumbeat, most of them are ride or die, to the point no party figure can ever rise if they don't howl the same tune and push it when in power. It's hard to say what anyone in congress REALLY believes, but I'd attribute your first paragraph to stricter party discipline in th GOP rather than faith in the party platform. Democrats havent been unified in their party platform--pro-life TX rep henry cuellar and his endorsement by pelosi comes to mind--but there are some issues that seem non-negotiable. Funding/support for Israel and Ukraine are two examples I'd say that republicans do seem more open to wackjobs and "less-qualified" candidates, so long as they adhere to the party platform
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Not sure how you want them to codify abortion rights legislation when they might not control the House. They control the house for the next couple months, no?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:They control the house for the next couple months, no? And Manchin and Sinema are the 49th and 50th votes for the next couple of months too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
Again, the problem isn’t the House. They don’t have enough votes in the Senate
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Again, the problem isn’t the House. They don’t have enough votes in the Senate The problem is currently the Senate. After the new Congress gets seated the problem will likely be the House and may also still be the Senate depending on Georgia's runoff, due to the filibuster. BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:They control the house for the next couple months, no?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:The problem is currently the Senate. After the new Congress gets seated the problem will likely be the House and may also still be the Senate depending on Georgia's runoff, due to the filibuster. The Senate will still be a problem regardless of the outcome in Georgia unless you think one of Manchin or Sinema can be magically flipped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 15:14
|
|
|
Srice posted:It's pretty easy to make a promise when you set a condition for that promise that's very likely not gonna happen. Did anyone seriously think that dems would gain 2 senators *and* keep control of the house? Does this actually matter? Regardless of whether it was likely or not, it was the absolute minimum that would be needed in order to pass the bill. Actually, it's shooting too low - the Dems would need a few-seat margin in the House as well. Fifty senators in favor and holding a sufficient House majority isn't some bizarre challenge the Dems invented to make progress impossible, it's the actual Constitutional requirement for passing bills.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
Srice posted:It's pretty easy to make a promise when you set a condition for that promise that's very likely not gonna happen. Did anyone seriously think that dems would gain 2 senators *and* keep control of the house? So you think politicians should not promise to pass bills once they have the numbers to actually do it? Should all policies be secret until they have the votes/majority for it to pass?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
Cpt. Mahatma Gandhi posted:The Senate will still be a problem regardless of the outcome in Georgia unless you think one of Manchin or Sinema can be magically flipped. Maybe. Unlikely, but maybe. Certainly more possible than both. But also pointless since without the House it doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:This bill looks pretty lovely tbh? If I'm reading it right, the bill is basically like the Dobbs decision where states can straight up ban SSM again if they want to, but hey you're still free to spend your time and money driving to another state to get the marriage you want! Plus it's full of religious liberty protections which are just another hateful roadblock that same sex couples have to deal with. yeah it's a bad bill but i guess that is what is able to pass in this climate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:So you think politicians should not promise to pass bills once they have the numbers to actually do it? Should all policies be secret until they have the votes/majority for it to pass?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:it's pretty clear they aren't saying that but that the promisises were not genuine because the prerequisite were not expected to be fulfilled There is also no particularly good reason whatsoever to believe that the promises were not genuine. Some people probably feel like they can freely insist that it was not genuine because they know it can't be disproven for at least 2 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
It's questionable whether the feds can, by law alone, prevent the states from regulating marriage how they like. The Constitution should obviously do that, and until SCOTUS was packed with unscrupulous hacks it obviously did, but doing it with a law would be a heavy lift even in front of a normal court, let alone this ridiculous one. It seems to me that the proposed bill is written so as to fall cleanly within the bounds of unquestioned federal authority and dodge the issues that are highest on the Roberts court's list of priorities for installing christofascism-- I would guess that in addition to being useful for getting ten Republicans on board, that's also the purpose of the religious liberty bits. That's extremely suboptimal, but probably the best strategy for governing with a time-limited and tenuous majority and a right-wing activist court breathing down your neck. Even if the Dems recapture majorities in 2024, this is what legislation is going to have to look like unless and until they can pack or otherwise neuter the Court.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:This bill looks pretty lovely tbh? If I'm reading it right, the bill is basically like the Dobbs decision where states can straight up ban SSM again if they want to, but hey you're still free to spend your time and money driving to another state to get the marriage you want! It prevents SCOTUS is not going to bother taking up Xombie fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Nov 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
Srice posted:It's pretty easy to make a promise when you set a condition for that promise that's very likely not gonna happen. Did anyone seriously think that dems would gain 2 senators *and* keep control of the house? They literally almost did this. Barnes was less than 30,000 votes from winning in Wisconsin, and the GOP may have a margin of less than 5 in the house. World Famous W posted:it's pretty clear they aren't saying that but that the promisises were not genuine because the prerequisite were not expected to be fulfilled Should they not be promising to do things in exchange for your vote? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? "Vote for me and I will give voters what they want". What are they supposed to campaign on if not the policies they want to enact?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
Xombie posted:It prevents Dobbs getting overturned because it makes it getting overturned pointless. Anybody can get the authority to solemnize marriages on the internet, so you'd just have to drive 1-2 hours in any direction in almost any state in order to be legally married in your own state. You could accomplish this after breakfast and be back in time for lunch. Xombie posted:Should they not be promising to do things in exchange for your vote? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? "Vote for me and I will give voters what they want". What are they supposed to campaign on if not the policies they want to enact? World Famous W fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Nov 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:55 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:If they insist on keeping the filibuster then no, they don’t have the 60 votes to pass abortion rights
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 16:09
|
|
