US Politics: A Sinematic view on voting rights and the filibuster

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

IIRC it's not even great on planned out crimes, because if you plan it out you think you won't get caught. Like the two options for committing crime is, done in an emotional moment, which means you aren't going to be thinking about the consequences, or deliberate and planned out, which means you think you can avoid the consequences.

This is why it's wrong for a person to say, "I'd never kill anyone." I think most people would like to think that, but you can't say it with certainty, hence the term crime of passion. 

Okay, let's be real, I'll go on record and say @Ormond isn't going to murder anyone. Or will he? 

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

The sand used in concrete can not just be any old sand due to the granular shapes. Saudi Arabia buys upper peninsula (MI) sand by the barge for instance, due to their own desert sand being subpar for cement.

For sure.  We talk about "sharp" and "washed" sand a lot in reference to mortar and concrete, you don't want a bunch of ball bearings in there, or even worse, salt (sharp meaning the particles are angular, and of varying sizes)*  But for most concrete, the shipping of the raw materials is a huge part of the cost.  So for the retail customer most of this is going to be sourced locally or from whatever bulk stuff is getting shipped in, and it's not all that glorious glacial yooper sand.  The subpar stuff gets used to when it's available and affordable. 

In the example I mentioned the offending material was used for the gravel and larger sized aggregate, not the sand. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, L'oiseau français said:

I'll just quote what a Florida resident wrote:

 

I think sinkholes happen due to the presence of limestone / karst environments rather than distance to the ocean, not to say this person is wrong, but I don't think distance to the ocean has much to do with sinkholes.   

[ThinkerX]

Those to the Left and those to the Right are likely unhappy about it (maybe 'furious' would be a better word choice) but it seems at least possible that Biden's bipartisan infrastructure deal will become reality without being tied to a larger bill on social spending.  Should it pass  both the house and the senate and get signed...well its a start towards cooperation...maybe...

Then again, I viewed the original monumental spending package as nothing more than an opening bid in a negotiation, something that was never intended to stand.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-walks-back-threat-on-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal/ar-AALtRu0?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580&fbclid=IwAR0dSypiBQwfXo5irzZZ7EoPhI7se5vRyHH7poU9zNGf9iszg6PAOB_doAs

WASHINGTON—President Biden walked back comments tying the fate of a roughly $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure agreement to a separate, Democratic effort to pass a broad antipoverty plan, recommitting to the bipartisan deal after Republicans threatened to withdraw their support.

Mr. Biden said Saturday that his earlier comments “created the impression that I was issuing a veto threat” on his proposal, “which was certainly not my intent.”

“The bottom line is this: I gave my word to support the Infrastructure Plan, and that’s what I intend to do. I intend to pursue the passage of that plan, which Democrats and Republicans agreed to on Thursday, with vigor,” he said in a statement. Mr. Biden will travel to Wisconsin on Tuesday to discuss the merits of the agreement, according to a White House official.

The statement marked a significant reversal by the president in a bid to preserve bipartisanship support of the infrastructure bill, after he had thrown the recently sealed deal into doubt.

[IheartIheartTesla]

9 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I think sinkholes happen due to the presence of limestone / karst environments rather than distance to the ocean, not to say this person is wrong, but I don't think distance to the ocean has much to do with sinkholes.   

Yeah, Miami in fact has had a few sinkholes in the past (Florida has a 'sinkhole map', for anyone interested) . What may be true is that those ones didnt necessarily happen from ocean water, but rather from underground piping leaks etc.

Of course, no one has suggested here or elsewhere that the building collapse was definitely caused by a sinkhole. The earth beneath the foundation shifting/erosion etc. is a compelling explanation.

Speaking of Florida, I just read an article in the Guardian about how houses in the Florida Keys were now in danger of flooding. Some people there still wont accept its from global warming.

[Ormond]

11 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Okay, let's be real, I'll go on record and say @Ormond isn't going to murder anyone. Or will he? 

Highly unlikely in my present personality. However, dementia has been known to make the personalities of some elderly persons more belligerent, so perhaps in another decade all bets are off.

[Mindwalker]

Regarding the infrastructure bill: Isn't"asset recycling" just a fancy word for "selling off public property"?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

Highly unlikely in my present personality. However, dementia has been known to make the personalities of some elderly persons more belligerent, so perhaps in another decade all bets are off.

I guess the real question is, battle axe or sword?

[DMC]

9 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Those to the Left and those to the Right are likely unhappy about it (maybe 'furious' would be a better word choice) but it seems at least possible that Biden's bipartisan infrastructure deal will become reality without being tied to a larger bill on social spending.  Should it pass  both the house and the senate and get signed...well its a start towards cooperation...maybe...

The back and forth on Thursday was definitely a political mistake.  Biden never should have made that second statement publicly, but it was pretty clearly prompted by Pelosi's (and to a lesser Schumer's) stern stance on passing both or neither.  Just let Pelosi take that heat from the right/assurance to the left - because that's all that's needed anyway.  But, looks like the White House has sufficiently troubleshooted since. 

While still not giving any firm commitment - which is understandable on a bill that's yet to be negotiated let alone actually written - seems pretty clear based on his comments this morning on This Week that Manchin will support some type of reconciliation bill.  It's just gonna be somewhere in between Manchin and Sanders, and that makes sense.

There's gonna be completely warranted skepticism that the bipartisan deal will blow up until the moment Biden signs it, but the fact he's gotten this far is quite impressive.  Certainly exceeded my expectations.  As for "a start towards cooperation," however, think it's safe to say this deal will be the extent of that on any major/controversial legislation.

[Fez]

37 minutes ago, DMC said:

however, think it's safe to say this deal will be the extent of that on any major/controversial legislation.

You don't think Booker/Bass and Scott will be able to get to a final agreement on police reform?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

10 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Those to the Left and those to the Right are likely unhappy about it (maybe 'furious' would be a better word choice) but it seems at least possible that Biden's bipartisan infrastructure deal will become reality without being tied to a larger bill on social spending.  Should it pass  both the house and the senate and get signed...well its a start towards cooperation...maybe...

Then again, I viewed the original monumental spending package as nothing more than an opening bid in a negotiation, something that was never intended to stand.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-walks-back-threat-on-bipartisan-infrastructure-deal/ar-AALtRu0?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580&fbclid=IwAR0dSypiBQwfXo5irzZZ7EoPhI7se5vRyHH7poU9zNGf9iszg6PAOB_doAs

 

 

Unless Mitch McConnell has some reflection abilities to admit his hardline stance cost him in the Senate in the Georgia runoffs (he could be thinking, "We should have done the 2000 checks instead of fighting it), then I don't see where 12 Republicans come from. They have 7 right now, and to find five more requires McConnell's approval as the Republicans are disciplined unlike the Democrats.

I see it more likely that Republicans tank this like they did the Jan 6 Commission, and then we go to reconciliation. 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

You don't think Booker/Bass and Scott will be able to get to a final agreement on police reform?

I don't.  Or at least, if they do reach an agreement, I expect it will be watered down to the extent I wouldn't describe it as major/controversial.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

then I don't see where 12 Republicans come from. They have 7 right now, and to find five more requires McConnell's approval as the Republicans are disciplined unlike the Democrats.

It still has the support of the 21 Senators - 11 GOP and 10 Dem - as far as I'm aware.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

51 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't.  Or at least, if they do reach an agreement, I expect it will be watered down to the extent I wouldn't describe it as major/controversial.

Nor do I. It's hard to imagine the 10 Republicans that would support a bill, even a toothless one, and at that point I could see Dems walking away from a flawed bill.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

6 hours ago, Ormond said:

Highly unlikely in my present personality. However, dementia has been known to make the personalities of some elderly persons more belligerent, so perhaps in another decade all bets are off.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

6 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Regarding the infrastructure bill: Isn't"asset recycling" just a fancy word for "selling off public property"?

Not sure, but the Fed has been buying and holding distressed assets as part of its stimulus efforts for some time. Eventually such assets need to be unwinded or "recycled" may be a term for it, as in turned back to private equity through bond arrangements. 

It's not as nefarious as it sounds, especially now that the Fed needs to be careful not to let inflation get too great a toehold in the economy.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

It still has the support of the 21 Senators - 11 GOP and 10 Dem - as far as I'm aware.

I can't read your link--it's only for those who have a USA Today subscription, but they would have to have at least those 11 Republicans vote for it, as Bernie says the bipartisan deal is no good, and he won't vote for it. Other progressive senators could follow suit, I think. 

I'd say the bigger hurdle is seeing 10 Republicans actually vote for it.

[DMC]

35 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I can't read your link--it's only for those who have a USA Today subscription, but they would have to have at least those 11 Republicans vote for it, as Bernie says the bipartisan deal is no good, and he won't vote for it. Other progressive senators could follow suit, I think. 

I'd say the bigger hurdle is seeing 10 Republicans actually vote for it.

Weird you can't read the link.  I still can and I don't have a subscription.  Anyway, yeah a lot of progressives along with Sanders vowed not to vote for it unless they also passed a reconciliation bill/got a commitment from Manchin.  Warren, Markey, Gillibrand, I think quite a few others voiced similar stances when the deal was announced.  It's Biden and the leadership's job to deliver on that aspect.

Bernie's also voiced policy-based objections to the bill on the gas tax (which Biden also opposes) and a fee on electric vehicles (not sure if that'll be in there or not), but I think it's safe to assume if Biden can unite the caucus on a reconciliation bill most every Dem MC will vote for the bipartisan deal as well.  And there are 11 GOP votes for the latter...at least at the moment.  Again, plenty of skepticism Biden can pull this off/the GOP members will renege is more than warranted.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Weird you can't read the link.  I still can and I don't have a subscription.  Anyway, yeah a lot of progressives along with Sanders vowed not to vote for it unless they also passed a reconciliation bill/got a commitment from Manchin.  Warren, Markey, Gillibrand, I think quite a few others voiced similar stances when the deal was announced.  It's Biden and the leadership's job to deliver on that aspect.

Bernie's also voiced policy-based objections to the bill on the gas tax (which Biden also opposes) and a fee on electric vehicles (not sure if that'll be in there or not), but I think it's safe to assume if Biden can unite the caucus on a reconciliation bill most every Dem MC will vote for the bipartisan deal as well.  And there are 11 GOP votes for the latter...at least at the moment.  Again, plenty of skepticism Biden can pull this off/the GOP members will renege is more than warranted.

They better get a commitment from the remaining House moderates too. There aren't that many left, but it only takes a handful to sink a bill. And Kurt Schrader at least has already said he'll vote against reconciliation.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

They better get a commitment from the remaining House moderates too. There aren't that many left, but it only takes a handful to sink a bill. And Kurt Schrader at least has already said he'll vote against reconciliation.

Yeah, Schrader and an anonymous other member too.  Still, I think to simplify things, if Manchin is on board then so should enough House Dems.  At least on a one dimensional ideological line.  Plus, safe to be confident Pelosi can whip the requisite votes.