Fez

Speaking of compromise Speakers, no details on the deal yet, but interesting stuff out of Ohio. Looks like 22 (of the 67 total) Republicans in the state legislature joined with all 32 Democrats to elect a compromise Republican as Speaker.

AOC has now had extended conversations the house floor with both Gaetz and Gosar. Oh to be a fly on that wall.

Paul Gosar officially nominated Andy Biggs as a candidate for Speaker, and Matt Fuller (journalist) noted at least 11 Republicans applauding. That would suggest 13 Republicans at minimum voting against McCarthy.

But by continuing to vote, Democrats get to extend the humiliation and embarrassment among Republicans. That's a powerful motivator. Also, there is that slim chance Democrats do get to be involved. And lastly, the longer this goes, the more draining and demoralizing it becomes for Republicans; making it more likely a few do throw their hands up and walk away.

Not sure why you think Dem attendance is more likely to drop than GOP attendance.

That's the Fred Upton option. I wouldn't rule it out entirely, but it seems very unlikely. This was much more likely if Dems had gotten to 216 or 217 seats, since then they'd only need 2 Republicans; who could be Speaker and Deputy Speaker (a new position) and that'd take the sting out of certainly losing re-election in 2024. Although if the vote goes enough ballots who knows what might happen?

Sounds like there's maybe around 20 GOP 'No' votes actually. Which hilariously means there's a good chance Jeffries will get more votes for Speaker on the first ballot than McCarthy will. No idea what happens past that. But I suspect the answer is that Steve Scalise eventually ends up Speaker, as opposed to Jim Jordan (too insane for the GOP mods) or a compromise candidate like Fred Upton (too much of a death knell for any Republican who votes with Dems) or McCarthy winning on a later ballot (too much of his support is relatively soft and will crumble in search of an alternative if the lunatics holds fast). ETA: https://politicalwire.com/2023/01/03/conservatives-would-let-hakeem-jeffries-become-speaker/ I suspect they're bluffing, but it would hilarious if enough Republicans voted 'present' instead of 'no' so that Jeffries won. Although that would make the House even more dysfunctional since Jeffries wouldn't have a majority for anything, not even to pass a rules package.

Oh for sure. I will maintain Trump is the favorite in the Republican primary until I see some very convincing evidence otherwise. As far as preference, they're all different strands of awful. However, I think Trump is significantly worse on foreign policy than DeSantis or any other Republican option. And the damage done there can be more permanent, as well as just as damaging, than domestic fuckery; albeit often in harder to see ways.

Oh yeah, they love hearing others say what he's saying, but they haven't heard him say it. Which is why I think an energetic, engaged Trump would badly beat him if they were on stage together. I don't know if that Trump exists anymore though, he just sounds tired now. And I think the disengaged swing voters would like Biden more too.

DeSantis lacks charisma, has a squeaky voice, and is short (which shouldn't matter, but does). He also has only ever dealt with a subservient, underfunded Florida media; not the national limelight. I suspect the vast majority of Republicans who say they support him have never actually heard him speak; and it's completely unknown if he can handle the pressure of a national campaign. He's also not a great debater. That might not matter in 2023/24, but I think the Trump of 2015/16 would've eaten him alive on stage. All of which is to say, there's a long way to go before he's actually the favorite; and that includes in the general election. Right now I think he's basically "generic Republican" for many people.

Probably the same reason a variety of other top-tier US weapon systems haven't: They're very expensive, very rare, and Russia doesn't have any so there's worry about them capturing one.

I do not have a physics background. But it seems to me that this is a big deal and that we're still decades away from it having a direct impact on commercial energy production. Seems like it's an important step forward.

Kassandra is one of the most fun protagonists I've played in a video game. But ACO is even worse than ACV about gameplay feeling like filler. And although there's lots of great one-off moments and bits of dialog, every long-running quest and storyline ends with a disappointing whimper that mad me go "That's it?!"

It does start very fun. The only real issue (besides the Vikings being so civilian-conscious) is that even ignoring most side stuff the game is absurdly long, without ever really changing up the gameplay. But if you can avoid burnout, you're in for a good time. For me, I think around hour 40, knowing here were still like another 50 hours left (and that's skipping everything besides the major side quests), I just gave up.

You also start getting more cards that heavily boost heroism values (e.g., Iron Man has one that doubles your current point total), or temporarily removing heroism costs (Nico starts with one, Empower, from the beginning). I rarely find heroism costs to be a major hinderance. I've also started getting card modifications, which can including granting extra heroism on play (I assume ones also exist to reduce heroism costs, but I haven't seen those yet).

As of several years ago at least, members of the House get paid on the first of the month. And he isn't a member until January 3rd, which would mean no salary until Feb 1. If his credit is bad, I could see a lot of landlords denying him over concerns about whether he's good for the December/January rent (and February too if rent is due before the first). Especially if it's one of the bigger rental companies that is probably an automated system that can't account for "hey, it's a congressman; we'll be fine".

That's what I figured. And it's not like it'd ever happen anyway, just a curiosity for me. I remember there was enough of a senate fight as was after 2008, when the Democratic majority was large enough that they pushed to have 2-senator majority on every committee instead of the standard 1-senator. It's pretty strong these days actually. And there was starting to be a consensus that Ruben Gallego would primary her. He still might run, but I imagine there's going to be a lot of "wait and see" going on. ETA: Sure sounds like he's planning on still running:

The Sinema stuff does make me wonder about a hypothetical that won't happen but I'm curious about anyway: A single senator who refuses to caucus with either Democrats or Republicans simply won't get any committee assignments. This is known. But how big a bloc of independent/3rd party senators is needed before the committees actually do have to be re-organized to account for them? Is that in the senate rules anywhere? Like if the Bull Moose party came back and magically got 10 senate seats, would that be enough to get their own reserved seats on each committee?

Yeah, I've been enjoying it quite a bit too. Though I agree the abbey exploration is kinda odd. I think the heroes can seem over- or under-powered depending on your playstyle. To me, Ghost Rider feels incredibly weak, to the point that I suspect I'm missing something fundamental about him. By contrast, any mission I take Dr. Strange goes smooth as anything. He just generates so much heroism that I barely play cards sometimes, and just go for near endless environmental damage.

Perhaps. But I don't think she fully thought this out either. Even if Democrats stand down, which I don't think is likely, they aren't going to financially support her or organize a campaign for her. Her own base is so tiny I can't see how she gets the volunteers necessary for a modern campaign. She may get a lot of corporate donations, but it's grassroots donations that fuel the really big fundraising hauls. And I suspect a decent chunk of Dems would sit out a her v. R race. Meanwhile, she voted to impeach Trump twice so I don't see her getting much crossover support either. Basically I fail to see how she wins reelection even without a Democrat running. I think the much smarter move, especially after seeing Kelly's win, would've been to spend the next 18 months being a loyal and vocal Democrat and hoping voters' short memories would protect her the primary.

Senate structure could just refer to which party are the majority, which the Democrats have even without her. Now probably she worked something out with Schumer to keep all her spots, since Schumer really wants 51 instead of 50 seats. But I don't think we know that yet. And this makes me even more suspicious that if Warnock had lost she'd flat out caucus with Republicans.

I don't even know if I'd say it's marginal. Sticking with AZ, the Republican nominee for Treasurer did win. She was the only statewide candidate in AZ not endorsed by Trump (other than maybe the Mines Inspector, who ran unopposed, not sure about him). She ran 6% better than Kari Lake and 9% better than Blake Masters while facing the exact same electorate; those are pretty decisive differences.

We literally just did this with Russia earlier this year. Trevor Reed was a civilian when he was arrested and sentenced to a gulag and the US got him back for a Russian cocaine smuggler.

It's hardly the first time the US has done prisoner swaps. This article goes through some of the examples: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/28/world/europe/prisoner-swaps-exchanges-us.html We have a long history going back to decades. Sometimes it was spy-for-spy swaps, like what we did with the Soviets in 1962; but not always. And at least it was 1:1. Israel once released 1,027 Palestinians, many facing life sentences, for a single captured IDF soldier.

The US was rarely the target of the weapons he sold. African countries, Israel, and Balkan countries were much more likely to be impacted. He's a scumbag to the world.