|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Yeah Michigan has been passing a ton of great laws with a similarly thin margin in the state House (56D-54R) Virginia did pretty nice while it lasted too. It's almost like the people who said flipping seats matters were right or something.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
Killer robot posted:Virginia did pretty nice while it lasted too. It's almost like the people who said flipping seats matters were right or something. As long as the government actually wants to pass things. Not much going on in California last I heard. Or NYC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 06:02
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:As long as the government actually wants to pass things. Not much going on in California last I heard. Or NYC. I'm less familiar with what seats have flipped in NYC, but when the conservative "Democrats" who caucused with Republicans in the state legislature got bumped there were definite good developments. Sometimes the effect is minor and sometimes it's dramatic, but there's pretty much always a material benefit to every seat flipped by your party and every primary won by your intraparty faction. The far right understood that to the point of making it religion, and it's paid off handsomely. It's good to see it happen on the left too, since it seems to encourage more of the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 06:18
|
|
|
Part of why there's been so much news about Minnesota and Michigan Democrats doing things (and Virginia until 2021) is that Democrats hadn't controlled those states before. Like the Washington state government is pretty good too but they don't need to pass the entire platform in one session because it was already a blue state. If Arizona Democrats flip two state legislature seats next year and the Wisconsin supreme court overturns their legislative map, those states will probably pass the whole platform in one session.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 06:36
|
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:“Party of law and order” means and has always meant supporting the excessive use of force on minorities. It has nothing to do with any consistent vision of law or order, especially one that might result in negative consequences for someone on their side. I agree, but I will say that they do have a consistent vision of law and order. They believe that there are those who the law protects, but does not bind; and those who the law binds, but doesn't protect. See the GOP through that lens and everything they do is pretty consistent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 06:55
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Part of why there's been so much news about Minnesota and Michigan Democrats doing things (and Virginia until 2021) is that Democrats hadn't controlled those states before. Like the Washington state government is pretty good too but they don't need to pass the entire platform in one session because it was already a blue state. If Arizona Democrats flip two state legislature seats next year and the Wisconsin supreme court overturns their legislative map, those states will probably pass the whole platform in one session. Wait, why on earth wouldn't you pass the whole thing in one session if you can?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 07:11
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Wait, why on earth wouldn't you pass the whole thing in one session if you can? Because you already passed some of it in the past several years, where you also controlled the state government. Minnesota had a divided government until this year so not as much was possible. James Garfield fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Jun 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 07:15
|
|
|
drafting and reviewing legislation is also a ton of work and bad legislation is often worse than no legislation, particularly since you may only get a single shot at it so you really want to do it right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 07:59
|
|
|
Bad legislation rushed through is also occasionally going to give us things like "state gop accidentally legalized shrooms, covers under medicaid" so I'm torn
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 08:27
|
|
|
While I get it, it does come off a little like a few too many cases of being tut-tutted to about not being hasty, and then politicians stand around dithering in between instantly passing more funding for cops and corporate tax breaks and whoops the Republicans won and we can't do anything, you should have voted harder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 08:57
|
|
|
Isn't this illegal, or at least frowned upon? https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1667000026868981761
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 12:26
|
|
|
I think that's standard practice
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 12:46
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:While I get it, it does come off a little like a few too many cases of being tut-tutted to about not being hasty, and then politicians stand around dithering in between instantly passing more funding for cops and corporate tax breaks and whoops the Republicans won and we can't do anything, you should have voted harder. The purpose of a system is yadda yadda. I also think of it like exercising a new muscle group you've let atrophy for the better part of a century. Which one of those two types of actions have they been practicing constantly for decades? When you do something constantly, it's easy to get it done quick next time. They all know how to give more funding to cops and cut taxes for the wealthy because they've been doing it forever. Want to give funding to combat homelessness as just one example? Well how do you do that? Nobody knows. Who is in a position to get it done? Probably nobody at all. Who is in what office to actually oversee the process start to finish? Again probably nobody ever. You need to start drawing out the blueprints before you even get to building the foundation before you get to building the infrastructure to actually help someone south of the 1%. Shooting Blanks posted:Isn't this illegal, or at least frowned upon? It is going to be a very specifically legal answer depending on exactly what was shown, how it was presented, what markings were on the documents, the contents, and where it came from.  Just kidding that's the answer for little people who actually get punished by the law. For someone in the circle of the elites it doesn't mean poo poo. Nobody would hold her accountable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 13:31
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Isn't this illegal, or at least frowned upon? It's also MTG. On the outside chance they actually showed her secret information, she was probably too busy scouring it for "damning" evidence against Biden and then wrote down whatever her current fanfiction is. So if what she wrote down was actually 1:1 confidential material, yes, but considering how fickle human memory is even before you apply MTG's lens of insanity to it, it's probably fine legally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 13:39
|
|
|
She's made the whole thing up, I'm pretty sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 13:50
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:She's made the whole thing up, I'm pretty sure. Made what up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 14:38
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Made what up? If anything matters, the part about being allowed into the SCIF.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 14:46
|
|
|
I thought it was public knowledge that the FBI was allowing MoC to read whatever that document was rather than turning it over to the House committee. Is that incorrect? eta: Here's Time: quote:House Republicans have latched onto the existence of FBI notes, called an FD-1023 form, saying they point to a broader effort by foreign governments to influence U.S. policy when Biden was Vice President. The Justice Department under then-Attorney General Bill Barr investigated the allegation in 2020, found no evidence to back them up, and closed the inquiry, according to the top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who was briefed with Comer by the FBI. https://time.com/6286027/biden-calls-bribery-accusations-malarkey/
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
Wouldn't that SCIF session count as a Congressional duty and be covered by the speech or debate clause? So she couldn't be prosecuted for breaking confidentiality but ideally the FBI would stop inviting her specifically in the future
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:18
|
|
|
Some additional information on the FBI doc: Fox News, on the contents: quote:According to the FD-1023 form, the confidential human source said the Burisma executive discussed Hunter’s role on the board. The confidential human source questioned why the Burisma executive needed his or her advice in acquiring access to U.S. oil if he had Hunter Biden on the board. The Burisma executive answered by referring to Hunter Biden as "dumb." PBS, on the sourcing: quote:The document Republicans are focused on is what is known as an FD-1023 form, which is used by federal agents to record tips and information they receive from confidential human sources. The FBI says such documents can contain uncorroborated and incomplete information, and that the record of a tip does not validate the information. My best guess, since the source is considered credible, is that the Burisma executive was making these claims but was not telling the truth himself, or that there was some kind of miscommunication. It's possible that, say, the source was a would-be investor, and the exec was telling tall tales to convince him that the Shokin investigation was no problem and US acquisitions would be taken care of. The House committee is investigating financial records to see if there is any evidence of shady foreign dealings. Some kind of flat-out bribe seems incredibly unlikely to me, not because I'm a credulous lib but because Burisma already did pay "the Bidens" millions via giving Hunter a lucrative, more or less no-show job. Why would they need another way to funnel money when they're already doing that openly? e: Generally speaking, based on what I know it seems like Greene was being honest about the contents, but dishonest about how conclusive those contents actually are. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jun 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:21
|
|
|
I'm not arguing about the contents of the documents; I'm only rebutting this:Dietrich posted:She's made the whole thing up, I'm pretty sure. to which, when I asked what she was "making up," someone else replied: BDawg posted:If anything matters, the part about being allowed into the SCIF. These statements are false; she was allowed into the SCIF as was every other member of Congress. edit to respond to above edit: The Twitter clip just has her stating that she thinks the document should be available to everyone, not only members of Congress, unless I missed something. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jun 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
With who we're talking about here, it possible she was allowed in the SCIF but never even bothered to go. This is the one that basically lies constantly right? Or is that Boebert? Regardless, no amount of her admitting to stuff is really much evidence she did the stuff she admitted to at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:
Yea, MTG isn't sophisticated enough to understand this kind of thing, she's practically expecting to find a picture of Joe Biden sneaking around in the shadows with a big bag with a dollar sign on the side of it. Anything that even loosely suggests that is also the evidence she's looking for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:29
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:With who we're talking about here, it possible she was allowed in the SCIF but never even bothered to go. This is the one that basically lies constantly right? Or is that Boebert? So you're stating that she never entered the SCIF, correct? eta: I'm focusing on this bc it seems rather important to stick to factual events when discussing & debating political events, rather than allowing our perceptions or opinions to distort those events.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:With who we're talking about here, it possible she was allowed in the SCIF but never even bothered to go. This is the one that basically lies constantly right? Or is that Boebert? I don't really see any reason to think she wouldn't have gone into the SCIF, though. She's a true believer and absolutely expected to see something damning in that document; I bet she was actually really excited to go read it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:So you're stating that she never entered the SCIF, correct? I'm pretty sure the original person was just making a glib joke because she lies about everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
Wray's stated reason for not releasing the document until they threatened to hold him contempt was that it contained sensitive information about the source. Which I'm sure is true. I do also wonder, though, if he has been not releasing it because he knew Republicans would overplay and distort its content. After all, a Burisma executive saying "we bribed the Vice President" would trigger further investigation, and said investigation was probably done years ago, and Wray likely knows a lot more about the veracity of the allegations than is on the form.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Greene kind of says more insane things than Boebert, but also acts more like a normal congressional rep (shows up to work, acknowledges leadership, etc). Boebert is more of the "talks a big game" kind of person, but MTG has a proven track record of actually stalking congresspeople and school shooting survivors. Boebert is the Karen kind of insane, while MTG will probably end her political career by killing someone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:
Yeah so the thing is that they're trying hard to tie this in with the Hunter laptop email that talks about "The Big Guy", to the point where the person interviewed mentions "The Big Guy" and the purported 50,000 bribe. He says something like "50,000? No its $5 million" to paraphrase. Plus some Republican got mad at reporters because everyone other than Fox refused to characterize the witness as "highly credible." Between that and Trump's FBI passing on it, it sounds... not that credible. I don't think Joe-loving-Biden is above bribery but it certainly smells like the right trying to make something out of nothing. They also haven't found anyone that benefited from this bribery other than Hunter Biden. We've already gone through the Burisma claim multiple times -- that the prosecutor was stonewalling the investigation and that western nations wanted him replaced because he was knee-deep in corruption. They should find actual evidence here and, if it's credible, indict Biden. Mellow Seas posted:After all, a Burisma executive saying "we bribed the Vice President" would trigger further investigation, and said investigation was probably done years ago, and Wray likely knows a lot more about the veracity of the allegations than is on the form. So, pretty much this. There's no loving way they didn't investigate based off of that testimony. That the Republicans are not talking about the results of *that* investigation leads me to believe they turned up nothing. Edit: To clarify why I think "The Big Guy" verbiage is sussy, its because the right wing has been trying to portray the Biden's as this crime family that talks about doing crimes for "The Big Guy" and their base has bought into this narrative. I don't expect some random Burisma executive to talk about Biden that way naturally -- it sounds pretty forced in an effort to play into those biases. When I read the report of the contents, it really sounded like someone acting to match the going narrative in 2020 rather than something natural. Of course that could just be my biases coming into play here. ryde fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jun 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 16:15
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Boebert is more of the "talks a big game" kind of person, but MTG has a proven track record of actually stalking congresspeople and school shooting survivors. Boebert is the Karen kind of insane, while MTG will probably end her political career by killing someone. I mean I still think it's pretty likely she (and Boebert and likely others) were hoping and made some effort to ensure that their colleagues would be murdered on Jan 6. Afaik we've never really gotten any insights about the panic locks being removed. And I think it was Boebert who was walking Jan 6 rioters through the capitol a few days prior. Of course knowing the government it was just something stupid like they got removed for x legitimate reason and no one bothered to let the reps know about it. And it's also entirely possible that those Jan 6 folks just made an appt with Boebert as constituents (whether they were actual constituents or not). 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 16:27
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:These statements are false; she was allowed into the SCIF as was every other member of Congress. She's allowed to enter a SCIF because she's a member of Congress. But, in my opinion she shouldn't be given access because she's a risk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 16:36
|
|
|
BDawg posted:She's allowed to enter a SCIF because she's a member of Congress. But, in my opinion she shouldn't be given access because she's a risk. I really don't know how we can design a system to handle cases where our elected representatives are this careless, dumb, or malicious. I don't think we can just allow the FBI to say no to members of Congress because thats a one-way street to super corruption. But Greene is *clearly* a security risk. And, of course, Trump was (and still is, I guess) also a gaping security risk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
ryde posted:I really don't know how we can design a system to handle cases where our elected representatives are this careless, dumb, or malicious. I don't think we can just allow the FBI to say no to members of Congress because thats a one-way street to super corruption. But Greene is *clearly* a security risk. And, of course, Trump was (and still is, I guess) also a gaping security risk. Oh, we can't. Which is why I said, "if anything matters.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
BDawg posted:She's allowed to enter a SCIF because she's a member of Congress. But, in my opinion she shouldn't be given access because she's a risk. That wasn't the issue to which I was responding; it was your & the other allegation that she lied about being allowed to read the document, as you claimed. BDawg posted:If anything matters, [she lied] about being allowed into the SCIF.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
ryde posted:I really don't know how we can design a system to handle cases where our elected representatives are this careless, dumb, or malicious. I don't think we can just allow the FBI to say no to members of Congress because thats a one-way street to super corruption. But Greene is *clearly* a security risk. And, of course, Trump was (and still is, I guess) also a gaping security risk. Please do not use the words "Trump" and "gaping" in the same sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Please do not use the words "Trump" and "gaping" in the same sentence. You can't tell me what to do, you're not my real dad/mom/gender-neutral parent!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 16:43
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:That wasn't the issue to which I was responding; it was your & the other allegation that she lied about being allowed to read the document, as you claimed. I think there's a consensus that she probably did go into the SCIF. Are you looking for an explicit statement from Dietrich or BDawg on this, so they walk back these posts? Dietrich posted:She's made the whole thing up, I'm pretty sure. BDawg posted:If anything matters, the part about being allowed into the SCIF.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
I'm not "looking for" anything; I was trying to keep the goalposts in the same place in order to clarify the posts to which I was initially responding.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
I'm 100% sure she went in the SCIF - I'm sure there's dozens of people who could confirm that - and 110% sure it doesn't matter if some goon briefly expressed incredulity about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
Given the forum's reputation as the serious one for political discussion, I think it's important that we stick to factual events rather than projecting our opinions & personal feelings on things that have been proven to have factually happened, as I've said. I was under the belief that this has been a longstanding standard of discussion here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 17:17
|
|