US Politics

Raoul said:
A sneak preview of things to come if DeSantis runs…..

thread

Click to expand...


Argument of skipping first year of pandemic for reasons is not going to hold any sway. A state having more deaths per capita over a random period is a tough narrative to sell for general incompetence or gross negligence.
 
crappycraperson said:
Argument of skipping first year of pandemic for reasons is not going to hold any sway. A state having more deaths per capita over a random period is a tough narrative to sell for general incompetence or gross negligence.
Click to expand...

Also, I'd bet there's far more older people in Florida since it's THE retirement state, so it's another statistical bias.
 
NYT being incredibly corrupt with this puff piece on SBF. Not a great look with the latter being the 2nd biggest Dem donor in this cycle.
 
SinNombre said:
NYT being incredibly corrupt with this puff piece on SBF. Not a great look with the latter being the 2nd biggest Dem donor in this cycle.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a breakdown of the donations, but I don't know if that exists.

For instance, either he or his PAC spent around $10m on the primary campaign of some no-name rationalist in a new district, who ended up losing. Andrea Salinas won that primary, and went on to defeat Republican Mike Erickson, but those millions didn't do anything to help her or the Democrats. His tweets also said that he donated to primary campaigns, I don't know if he has said anything about donating to campaigns for the actual election.

He did apparently make a sizable donation to Biden's 2020 campaign, though.
 
^ FT has an article on it today but I haven’t read it. I wouldn’t be surprised if SBF was lying about his political leanings tbh, the guy is clearly a sociopathic liar but the NYT should have done better.
 
This should be fun to watch going forward.

McCarthy want to be speaker but doesn’t currently have the votes. Making drug deals with the crazies on the far right will only estrange the moderate Rs. But making a deal with the moderates and Dems would probably make him speaker.

 
Some good news I suppose. They 37 against? They are never going to learn, their bigotry and hate is just too great. The sooner they die off and leave it to (hopefully) more progressive generations the better.

 
WI_Red said:
Feinsteins seat, but she filed the paperwork necessary to run in 24, so…..

But yeah, she needs to announce her retirement ASAP.
Click to expand...
If she doesn't want to retire, the pain of being primaried will unfortunately come. I don't think anyone with enough humanity wants to see that being imposed on a 89-year-old woman.

Retiring now would be in her best interests.
 
Buckle up, it's going to be a hell of a ride into the sewer as he GOP flushes tax dollars down the drain

 
sglowrider said:
Is it even legal to vote against inter-racial marriages?
Click to expand...
Like most things in the US politics, it is needlessly complicated. Inter-racial marriage is obviously legal. The new law is actually putting in the same bracket inter-racial and same sex marriages (both of which are legal), codifying them so a federal/state judge cannot for example express that either of them is illegal.

The vote there actually was not to codify the law, but to bring an end to the debate (aka, stop filibustering the law, and initiate a vote for the law). So technically, McConnell voted against stopping the debate, not against the law. Bizarrely, it is not uncommon in the US for people who are doing filibustering themselves to actually vote Yes in a law. Probably the most famous case was that of Ted Cruz whom filibustered a law for 18 hours or so, talking a shitload of things including reading some kids book, then the senate having enough of it and voting to bring an end to the debate, and then for Cruz to actually vote Yes in that law.

I think one problem is this mechanism of filibustering that allows any senator to talk forever, and that can be stopped only if 60 senators agree to end the debate. It was meant for good (to make parties work together), but for the last 15 years has been used either as an obstruction tactic (from both parties), or just cause some senator likes hearing themselves speaking.
 
Revan said:
Like most things in the US politics, it is needlessly complicated. Inter-racial marriage is obviously legal. The new law is actually putting in the same bracket inter-racial and same sex marriages (both of which are legal), codifying them so a federal/state judge cannot for example express that either of them is illegal.

The vote there actually was not to codify the law, but to bring an end to the debate (aka, stop filibustering the law, and initiate a vote for the law). So technically, McConnell voted against stopping the debate, not against the law. Bizarrely, it is not uncommon in the US for people who are doing filibustering themselves to actually vote Yes in a law. Probably the most famous case was that of Ted Cruz whom filibustered a law for 18 hours or so, talking a shitload of things including reading some kids book, then the senate having enough of it and voting to bring an end to the debate, and then for Cruz to actually vote Yes in that law.

I think one problem is this mechanism of filibustering that allows any senator to talk forever, and that can be stopped only if 60 senators agree to end the debate. It was meant for good (to make parties work together), but for the last 15 years has been used either as an obstruction tactic (from both parties), or just cause some senator likes hearing themselves speaking.
Click to expand...

A couple of things:

1) Actually, this is no longer correct as there is not a requirement for anyone to do any talking to maintain a filibuster. Also, the rule was changed so that Senators do not even need to be present to maintain the filibuster. Previously, what was required was a 60% (generally speaking) of present Senators to vote an end to debate. Now it is hard coded at 60. All of this is to make filibustering as easy as possible and is the opposite of good governance.
2) The filibuster was never intended to be used as it is and is the unintended consequence of poor rules making by the founding fathers (the first filibuster was in 1836!!). Hamilton and Madison were strict believers in "majority rules" governance and never would have gone along with the concept of minority interference on governance.
3) The history of the filibuster is rooted in racism. Sen Calhoun of SC (a racist bastard) was the one who started using, and then utilizing, it.
 
Pelosi confirming she won’t seek re-election to the position of house leader again. Thank feck for that.
 
Pexbo said:
Pelosi confirming she won’t seek re-election to the position of house leader again. Thank feck for that.
Click to expand...

She was a great foil in the Trump years, but a more aggressive speaker would have been useful the last 2 years. Hopefully the next minority leader will be someone with the courage and savvy to deal with the absolute shower of shit that will be cascading over the GOP shit waterfall the next 2 years.
 
WI_Red said:
She was a great foil in the Trump years, but a more aggressive speaker would have been useful the last 2 years. Hopefully the next minority leader will be someone with the courage and savvy to deal with the absolute shower of shit that will be cascading over the GOP shit waterfall the next 2 years.
Click to expand...
She was weak as piss on Trump.
 
Pexbo said:
She was weak as piss on Trump.
Click to expand...

I disagree to an extent. On impeachment she could have been more aggressive, but for the rest of the 4 years she acted as a foil/target for his ire and it allowed the house to function as best it could with a GOP Senate majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.