US Politics: Rural Southernification… (thanks Zorral)

[DMC]

46 minutes ago, mormont said:

He's going to eliminate rape.

Why did no-one think of this plan before? Brilliant in its simplicity.

Abbott's been in office for six and a half years.  Was AG for 12 years before that.  Why did he wait so long to eliminate rape?

[Kalbear]

47 minutes ago, mormont said:

I understand the Texas governor has a plan to ensure the state's new laws don't force women to carry their rapist's baby to term.

He's going to eliminate rape.

Why did no-one think of this plan before? Brilliant in its simplicity.

https://www.businessinsider.com/abbott-says-he-will-eliminate-rape-texas-abortion-law-2021-9?r=US&IR=T

This is actually a very common response to the 'what about rape/incest'? 

The solution is incredibly simple: eliminate rapists. Now, you think - that's impossible! As it turns out, no, it isn't. You simply make current rape legal. Thus there are no rapists and therefore the problem is solved. 

This is also usually the response that they take when the stupid threat of women withholding sex comes up as a response to this law - simply make it legal for sexual assault and the problem is solved.

[Week]

Please, stop using common sense and use qanon sense -- all rapists are pouring over the border and the adrenochrome addicted "Democrat" party is encouraging it. Only the GQP can protect women from the satanic hordes.

Edit:

*Nods*

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

37 minutes ago, Kaligator said:

This is actually a very common response to the 'what about rape/incest'? 

The solution is incredibly simple: eliminate rapists. Now, you think - that's impossible! As it turns out, no, it isn't. You simply make current rape legal. Thus there are no rapists and therefore the problem is solved. 

This is also usually the response that they take when the stupid threat of women withholding sex comes up as a response to this law - simply make it legal for sexual assault and the problem is solved.

Humans can’t commit crimes if it’s God’s will. Problem solved.

[Zorral]

Soooo, the next law TX will be passing is making it a criminal act for women to visit Mexico -- or maybe take a pregnancy test before going?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-58482850

~~~~~~~~~

In the meantime remember the rethuglicans forever for decades clutching pearls and crying socialized medicine, waiting time for vital health care? rationed health care?

https://wsiltv.com/2021/09/07/idaho-enacts-crisis-hospital-care-standards-amid-covid-surge/

That's exactly what They have wrought.  Themselves.  They brought it on Themselves.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

It’s already not that great of a job, why make it even more punitive?

Idk, I think it's a pretty great job if you don't mind the grind, though I do think it should pay a good bit more. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Idk, I think it's a pretty great job if you don't mind the grind, though I do think it should pay a good bit more. 

Senate, I hear you. You even get your own elevator!  Congressperson…meh.*

Bigger point is that there are totally do-able ways to manage the conflicts and MNPI here.

 

*Yes, on-brand snobbery in evidence.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Senate, I hear you. You even get your own elevator!  Congressperson…meh.*

Bigger point is that there are totally do-able ways to manage the conflicts and MNPI here.

 

*Yes, on-brand snobbery in evidence.

*post made while aggressively swirling a glass of brandy*

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Can’t see that as a realistic or effective proposal.  Law firms and investment banks deal with this all the time.  I own plenty of stocks - I have one account over which I do not have trading authority (I set parameters, etc., but don’t pick stocks and don’t direct activity).  I own a few individual stocks outside that account for reasons, and if I want to do anything with them, I have to get sign-off from our internal ethics board, to affirm, among other things, that we (as a firm, not just me) do not have MNPI  with respect to such stock.  Even mutual funds and commodities funds can be problematic and are subject to this rule - and same for Congresspersons - Congress knows stuff with respect to them too.  Heck, currencies (ditto), etc. etc.  So, you know, it’s totally do-able to put something in place if the political will existed.  But to ban ownership?  Seems shortsighted - where could a congressperson put their money that government doesn’t touch?  It’s already not that great of a job, why make it even more punitive?

Re: bolded --I know this is a very relative statement, but, just want to say I strongly disagree with this characterization. 

No one is being punished for being a member of Congress.  Instead, it opens up all sorts of opportunities, and in the meantime, you get great benefits, and the salary is very high.  Yes, I know there are better paying jobs, but 170k a year (over 4x what I make) is nothing to sneeze at, even if you need to rent housing in DC as well.   IIRC Paul Ryan didn't even bother getting DC apartment and just slept on the couch in his office.  

That being said, maybe there is a workable way to allow ownership but limit being able to benefit from insider info.  I know next to nothing about finance or stocks, (have no clue what MNPI is) or investments, but just seeing the shenanigans that went on with the dumping stocks when covid hit last year, feels like an easy place to limit corruption.

 

[Week]

5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

That being said, maybe there is a workable way to allow ownership but limit being able to benefit from insider info.  I know next to nothing about finance or stocks, (have no clue what MNPI is) or investments, but just seeing the shenanigans that went on with the dumping stocks when covid hit last year, feels like an easy place to limit corruption.

 

That extra bit of sacrifice - totally warranted IMO - is also a good reminder that the job is one of public service that you do on behalf of your constituents. Not yourself.

[Zorral]

41 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Re: bolded --I know this is a very relative statement, but, just want to say I strongly disagree with this characterization. 

No one is being punished for being a member of Congress.  Instead, it opens up all sorts of opportunities, and in the meantime, you get great benefits, and the salary is very high.  Yes, I know there are better paying jobs, but 170k a year (over 4x what I make) is nothing to sneeze at, even if you need to rent housing in DC as well.   IIRC Paul Ryan didn't even bother getting DC apartment and just slept on the couch in his office.  

That being said, maybe there is a workable way to allow ownership but limit being able to benefit from insider info.  I know next to nothing about finance or stocks, (have no clue what MNPI is) or investments, but just seeing the shenanigans that went on with the dumping stocks when covid hit last year, feels like an easy place to limit corruption.

 

  If it is so bad a job why do So Many spend so much time and effort to get into that office and stay there, hmmmm?  O, ya, it allows for getting lots more fula nd control. That's the point.  Come on.  We KNOW that.

[Martell Spy]

5 hours ago, mormont said:

I understand the Texas governor has a plan to ensure the state's new laws don't force women to carry their rapist's baby to term.

He's going to eliminate rape.

Why did no-one think of this plan before? Brilliant in its simplicity.

https://www.businessinsider.com/abbott-says-he-will-eliminate-rape-texas-abortion-law-2021-9?r=US&IR=T

Getting dangerously close to Todd Akin territory here. This insanity probably makes sense from a conservative point of view. If you take the handcuffs off cops and cut the red tape, you can eliminate any crime through sheer force of will and draconian enforcement. Plus, they likely view the victim partly or wholly to blame, so they can crack down on them as well.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Re: bolded --I know this is a very relative statement, but, just want to say I strongly disagree with this characterization. 

No one is being punished for being a member of Congress.  Instead, it opens up all sorts of opportunities, and in the meantime, you get great benefits, and the salary is very high.  Yes, I know there are better paying jobs, but 170k a year (over 4x what I make) is nothing to sneeze at, even if you need to rent housing in DC as well.   IIRC Paul Ryan didn't even bother getting DC apartment and just slept on the couch in his office.  

That being said, maybe there is a workable way to allow ownership but limit being able to benefit from insider info.  I know next to nothing about finance or stocks, (have no clue what MNPI is) or investments, but just seeing the shenanigans that went on with the dumping stocks when covid hit last year, feels like an easy place to limit corruption.

 

Material non public information.  And yeah, they shouldn’t have been able to trade the way they did.  Every bank and large law firm in the country manages this stuff. It’s not rocket science.  Or brain surgery.  Or even rocket surgery.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Well, if this reporting is true, it would seem that my guess at a 20% cut in the $3.5T deal was off by....a staggering amount:

Quote

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) has privately warned the White House and congressional leaders that he has specific policy concerns with President Biden's $3.5 trillion social spending dream — and he'll support as little as $1 trillion of it — Axios' Hans Nichols scoops.

• At most, he's open to supporting $1.5 trillion, sources familiar with the discussions say.

https://www.axios.com/scoop-manchin-backs-as-little-as-1-trillion-of-bidens-35-trillion-plan-91d079e0-84a7-4f8f-94d4-212827a61339.html

[ThinkerX]

46 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well, if this reporting is true, it would seem that my guess at a 20% cut in the $3.5T deal was off by....a staggering amount:

https://www.axios.com/scoop-manchin-backs-as-little-as-1-trillion-of-bidens-35-trillion-plan-91d079e0-84a7-4f8f-94d4-212827a61339.html

figured something like this would be the case.  Take the 1.5 trillion and go for it...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

figured something like this would be the case.  Take the 1.5 trillion and go for it...

I said previously that taking $2.5T would still be a win and the progressive wing should be happy overall. It's hard to imagine them accepting $1.5T, but at the same time they really cannot tank the bipartisan bill. Everyone knows this.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well, if this reporting is true, it would seem that my guess at a 20% cut in the $3.5T deal was off by....a staggering amount:

Manchin's number has always been drastically lower that $3.5 trillion.  Back in June his max was $2 trillion, apparently:

Quote

"I want to make sure we pay for it. I do not want to add more debt on," Manchin responded. "So if that's $1 trillion or $1.5 trillion or $2 trillion -- whatever that comes out to be over a 10-year period -- that's what I would be voting for."

That's not the point.  The point is if Manchin remains this obstinate, he's not getting his infrastructure bill passed.  Manchin planting stories, or "scoops," with Axios doesn't change that fact.  Moreover, as emphasized by others (WaPo link), he will be blamed for the Democrats' failure, not progressives who have tried to negotiate in good faith:

Quote

If Senator Manchin prevents Democrats from using their majority, Republicans will be happy to borrow it next November.

Also, the note in the Axios piece that he's "skeptical" of using dynamic scoring for the reconciliation bill is absolute hypocritical bullshit considering that's exactly what him and the bipartisan group used for the infrastructure bill.  Plus, of course, it's what the GOP has relied on for years (as the article mentions).

[Arakan]

Who is Manchin or who does he think he is? The typical contrarian asshole? Takes himself way too serious. 3.5 trillion USD is a lot of money but then
- 10 years
- size of the US
- no significant investment in infrastructure since the 80s

There‘s so much work to be done, so many projects which are underfinanced. And virtually all of the money will flow back into the US Economy (unless you guys hire Chinese and Korean contractors on a massive scale). 

Combine infrastructure development with climate change protection and its a no brainer. Coastal flood protection alone is worth it. 

Really, politics more often than not is nothing more than an irrational, illogical, childish power play…

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I said previously that taking $2.5T would still be a win and the progressive wing should be happy overall. It's hard to imagine them accepting $1.5T, but at the same time they really cannot tank the bipartisan bill. Everyone knows this.

because the alternative is zero.

 

I pointed out here a few weeks back that the bipartisan infrastructure bill would pass because there are enough relatively sane republican congress critters drooling at the prospect of all that money coming to their state/district.  They could point out to their voters 'see - I brought you all this money for assorted boondoggles and it's all paid for!'  And they wouldn't even be lying by all that much.  

 

The issue was always the reconciliation bill.  That was always going to be a party line package because most of it is anti-ethical to even the relatively sane republicans. Plus, the whole 'moderate' / 'progressive' thing.  One side or the other was always absolutely certain to demand to much or push to hard and either sink the entire package or get it chopped in half.   To me, that was never really in doubt.  So...if a 1.5 trillion package comes up, and the alternative is zero, the progressive choice is clear - tank the whole thing out of spite.  Or weep and wail and vote for it.   

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

To me, that was never really in doubt.  So...if a 1.5 trillion package comes up, and the alternative is zero, the progressive choice is clear - tank the whole thing out of spite.  Or weep and wail and vote for it.   

You could say the exact same thing about Manchin just accepting a $3.5 trillion bill.  The difference is the CPC is 94 House members and a good amount of like-minded Senators as opposed to Manchin, Sinema, and maybe about a dozen House holdouts.

Manchin has blocked the Dems from abolishing, or even reforming, the filibuster.  He's been a dick on everything from the stimulus bill to minimum wage to voting rights.  Enough is enough.  The progressives are not going to engage in such feckless capitulation on the bill that most thoroughly advances the Democratic party's agenda, and they're absolutely right.