U.S. Politiks: The Manchin-ian Candidate

[Jace, Extat]

29 minutes ago, DMC said:

Wray has over six years left on his term.  I wouldn't count on him resigning anytime soon.

You're the smart one. Is there a reason he hasn't been fired?

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Comrade Jace, Leftist said:

You're the smart one. Is there a reason he hasn't been fired?

Biden is too much of an institutionalist to fire the FBI Director unless it was recommended by the AG.  Garland, also, is too much of an institutionalist to recommend firing the FBI Director unless the IG/some type of internal investigation concluded he should be.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Wasn't the guy just recently exposed for pretty much running a fraudulent investigation into Cavanaugh's background (basically a cover-up)?

Hardly the type of behavior we need from the head of our FBI.

[Fragile Bird]

20 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Wasn't the guy just recently exposed for pretty much running a fraudulent investigation into Cavanaugh's background (basically a cover-up)?

Hardly the type of behavior we need from the head of our FBI.

Oooh, I missed that, must look it up.

[Mindwalker]

Yeah, he didn't look very hard. However, as it was not a criminal investigation, but just a background check, he may get away with it. (That's what I took from an expert on a Zerlina show.)

I think this is the piece I watched:

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

If obvious solutions have no support, and raising support for said issues only makes them less likely to pass, are they still so obvious?

I dunno, obvious was the word you chose.  

When has raising support for something ever made anything less likely to pass?  If that's the case why spend any energy on electoral politics at all?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I dunno, obvious was the word you chose.  

When has raising support for something ever made anything less likely to pass?  If that's the case why spend any energy on electoral politics at all?

Because there are wise and unwise ways to use your political capital, which is hard to come by, so use it wisely my friend. Or chase a squirrel up a tree if you think that's what's going to get you reelected. These are the realities of our world.

[Martell Spy]

Drug pricing, climate, immigration: House Dems eye ‘kitchen sink’ for next big bill
They're looking at ways to muscle through priorities using the arcane process that let the party bypass GOP votes for its Covid bill.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/19/reconciliation-house-democrats-477246

Less than two weeks after President Joe Biden signed into law one of Congress’ most expansive measures in decades, House Democratic leaders are already dreaming bigger.

Quote

 

With most items on their agenda hobbled by the Senate filibuster, top House Democrats are eyeing ways to muscle through drug pricing and climate policy goals using the same arcane budget process that let the party bypass GOP votes for its pandemic aid bill. Sweeping immigration bills are also on the wishlist for many members, with Democrats eager to fit what they can in Biden’s next high-profile package — which could be the party’s last shot at using the budget tool before the midterm elections.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer haven’t formally decided to use the budgetary tool known as reconciliation for Biden’s next major priority, an infrastructure and jobs plan. Biden and top Democrats are still publicly courting Republicans for his proposal. But given the Senate GOP’s continued reluctance, many senior Democrats in both chambers believe it will be the ultimate path.

House Democrats are in discussions about including two of the caucus’ signature bills — one, a drug pricing bill known as H.R. 3, and another a sweeping green infrastructure bill known as H.R. 2 — as part of the next reconciliation package, according to people familiar with their plans. Both would be enormous wins for Pelosi, whose caucus drafted the measures soon after retaking the majority in 2019.

Those plans are still in the early stages. House lawmakers left town Friday for a three-week recess, which Democratic chairs will spend starting to assemble their pieces of the package. That includes House Transportation Committee Chair Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who aims to mark up his piece of the massive bill by late May.

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Raul Ruiz made the pitch for an immigration effort to his colleagues on a private caucus call last week.

Influential factions within the Democratic caucus are also making the case to include more provisions using the budget process. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus wants to include the White House's immigration bill, which would offer a path to citizenship for 11 million people who have been living in the U.S.

 

 

[Kalbear]

6 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I dunno, obvious was the word you chose.  

When has raising support for something ever made anything less likely to pass?  If that's the case why spend any energy on electoral politics at all?

Right now everything that any Democrat supports makes it less likely to pass. The louder they support it, the more likely Republicans will oppose it. The counter is true as well for the most part, though it's not quite so extreme. 

[Martell Spy]

11 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

Right now everything that any Democrat supports makes it less likely to pass. The louder they support it, the more likely Republicans will oppose it. The counter is true as well for the most part, though it's not quite so extreme. 

 

The latter I don't think is really true. Do you base your support of an issue on what Republicans are doing on a certain issue? I certainly don't. I don't take an anti-racist stand because Republicans are becoming increasingly racist. I do it because racism is putrid, small-minded, and violates human rights.

A distressing thing about current-day Republicans is they increasingly have no real ethical code, not even a warped one. So murdering the very pro-life Pence makes perfect sense to some of them. Which is really far away from being pro-life, as you are killing someone who also happens to be very anti-abortion. 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

The latter I don't think is really true. Do you base your support of an issue on what Republicans are doing on a certain issue? I certainly don't. I don't take an anti-racist stand because Republicans are becoming increasingly racist. I do it because racism is putrid, small-minded, and violates human rights.

This isn't about me; this is about in general. Lots of research indicates that people will go with whatever group's views are, and will justify them as they go along. 

And yes, it's true for Dems too. Dems supported lots of racist policies fairly recently, after all; Clinton got the  tough on crime rules in, and Dems (mostly) supported tough drug laws. It's true for Dems because it's true for people; most people simply don't actually care that much about most positions and are more interested in staying current with their group. Somewhat amusing to me, the people who score the worst on that - those who care more about care/harm and fairness, at the expense of being part of a group - are US liberals. But that's still only like 10% of people. 

3 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

A distressing thing about current-day Republicans is they increasingly have no real ethical code, not even a warped one. So murdering the very pro-life Pence makes perfect sense to some of them. Which is really far away from being pro-life, as you are killing someone who also happens to be very anti-abortion. 

Not to get into this too much, but this kind of thinking won't help you much. Your framing of this is wrong, and kind of will sound ridiculous to anyone who believes this sort of thing, because what you're doing is comparing the value of an innocent life to someone who is killing an innocent life (as far as they're concerned). And if Pence is going to stand in the way of Trump staying POTUS and stopping those abortion people, well, he's got to go too because that's far more threatening . 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

This isn't about me; this is about in general. Lots of research indicates that people will go with whatever group's views are, and will justify them as they go along. 

You didn't say that Democrats are basing support of an issue based on the opinions of other Democrats. (which I would not have disagreed with) You said that Republicans become more likely to oppose an idea the louder Democrats support it. And you said that the same is true for Democrats, to a lesser degree. That is what I disagreed with. 

If Republicans suddenly become in favor of healthcare, Democrats aren't going to suddenly abandon the issue and become Paul Ryan clones.

[Ser Reptitious]

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because there are wise and unwise ways to use your political capital, which is hard to come by, so use it wisely my friend. Or chase a squirrel up a tree if you think that's what's going to get you reelected. These are the realities of our world.

[Larry of the Lawn]

So the way to try to get an issue addressed is to what, ignore it?  Make a point of not talking about?  What are some examples that, as they've become more popular, have become less likely to happen?  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

So the way to try to get an issue addressed is to what, ignore it?  Make a point of not talking about?  What are some examples that, as they've become more popular, have become less likely to happen?  

What do you do if you want to address an issue that's obviously dead on arrival before you even bring it up? Working to change the political landscape slowly seems like a better plan than jumping off of a cliff to prove that you can fly.

[Larry of the Lawn]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What do you do if you want to address an issue that's obviously dead on arrival before you even bring it up? Working to change the political landscape slowly seems like a better plan than jumping off of a cliff to prove that you can fly.

This is not a response.

edit: ok, it's just a bad response.  How do you change a political landscape (whatever the fuck that is) when you can't even muse about it or discuss it?  

Again, name one cause that will be less likely to be addressed because of increasing support for it.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

This is not a response.

edit: ok, it's just a bad response.  How do you change a political landscape (whatever the fuck that is) when you can't even muse about it or discuss it?  

Again, name one cause that will be less likely to be addressed because of increasing support for it.  

Key missing here is "attempting to." Advocating for something that actually has the chance of building momentum is the basis of good politics. Making a lot of noise for something that doesn't have anywhere to go at the moment, not so much. Doesn't mean you can't still fight for it if you really believe in it, but it's not the best use of your time, hence why I said it's a bad use of political capital if you're in a position to actually have it.

[Fez]

On 3/21/2021 at 3:25 AM, DireWolfSpirit said:

Ffs is Feinstein really 87 yrs old?

There's nothing sane or admireable about anyone clinging to vestiges of power and privilege till the moment they flop into a grave.

Move the hell on and let some new blood in for ffs.

Feinstein should clearly not be in the senate any longer. However, the issue with any sort of age limit, besides the constitutional one, is that there's no guarantee that some that old can't capably serve. I disagree with Chuck Grassley on almost every issue, but he's also 87 and has shown no signs of slowing down. There's a good chance he's even going to run for reelection again next year.

Byrd served until he died in office at age 92, and was basically fine until age 90, when his health declined severely. If he had retired in 2008 rather than run for re-election again, there'd have been no issues with him not able to fulfill his duties. OTOH, if he had retired, a Republican probably would've won his seat in 2008, and then Democrats would've never had that brief window of 60 votes to pass the ACA.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

43 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Key missing here is "attempting to." Advocating for something that actually has the chance of building momentum is the basis of good politics. Making a lot of noise for something that doesn't have anywhere to go at the moment, not so much. Doesn't mean you can't still fight for it if you really believe in it, but it's not the best use of your time, hence why I said it's a bad use of political capital if you're in a position to actually have it.

We're losing sight of where this conversation began. You flagged "musing about obvious solutions that will otherwise never happen" as "a major problem with today's politics."  And the question remains... what exactly the fuck are you talking about? Because you've offered no specifics. What are the specific issues on which people's musings have shown any demonstrable ill effect in politics, let alone a "major" ill effect? 

[DMC]

30 minutes ago, Fez said:

OTOH, if he had retired, a Republican probably would've won his seat in 2008, and then Democrats would've never had that brief window of 60 votes to pass the ACA.

This is an odd thing to say considering Manchin won the seat in the much more difficult 2010 cycle.  What you could say is Manchin may well have been more difficult to get on board.

Anyway, I think your argument that Grassley and Byrd are/were perfectly capable over 80 misses the point.  I'm sure there are many people under 30 perfectly capable of being a Senator, and certainly there's many people under 25 just as capable of being in the House as most of their sitting members.  The point is, generally, those age minimums make sense.  Just as an age maximum of 80 makes sense.  Any cutoff - either way - is obviously arbitrary and inherently unfair to some, but if we're gonna do it on the front end I don't see a problem doing it on the back end too.