Jump to content

US Politics: Maniac Manchin


A Horse Named Stranger

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Truly hope you're right because if it comes down to chicken, Manchin backs down (imo).

I dunno who will "win" or back down, just saying this high-wire act where everything comes down to the eleventh hour - or even later - is increasingly common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More wagon circling for the good General Milley.

Retired General: General Milley did his job

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/16/opinions/milley-woodward-costa-book-hertling/index.html

According to retired Lt. General Mark Hertling, Milley was doing his job and doing it outstanding as well. We should all be very grateful we have people like this in positions of responsibility.

"These actions are part of the Chairman's job, they are driven by intelligence, and they follow protocol. Those wanting the Chairman to resign because they perceived he had aided or abetted the "enemy," or those who are prone to call his actions treasonous, need to understand how these actions work, how they are extremely beneficial to the security of the United States, and how doing so is truly tied to the responsibility associated with the Chairman's position." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Women can say no to sex if Roe falls, says architect of Texas abortion ban
Jonathan Mitchell writes in supreme court brief that ‘women can “control their reproductive lives” without access to abortion’

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief

Quote

 

The legal architect of the Texas abortion ban has argued in a supreme court brief that overturning Roe v Wade, the landmark decision which guarantees a right to abortion in the US, could cause women to practice abstinence from sexual intercourse as a way to “control their reproductive lives”.

Former Texas solicitor general Jonathan Mitchell, who played a pivotal role in designing the legal framework of the state’s near-total abortion ban, also argued on behalf of anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life that women would still be able to terminate pregnancies if Roe was overturned by traveling to “wealthy pro-abortion” states like California and New York with the help of “taxpayer subsidies”.

Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse,” Mitchell wrote in the brief. “One can imagine a scenario in which a woman has chosen to engage in unprotected (or insufficiently protected) sexual intercourse on the assumption that an abortion will be available to her later. But when this court announces the overruling of Roe, that individual can simply change their behavior in response to the court’s decision if she no longer wants to take the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:


Women can say no to sex if Roe falls, says architect of Texas abortion ban
Jonathan Mitchell writes in supreme court brief that ‘women can “control their reproductive lives” without access to abortion’

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief

 

Day late and a dollar short.

:ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor Bob Woodward, having had to spend so much of the time he has left, on a greasy, negative and depressing character of deciept and corruption like our former President.

He probably needs to spend months at a recovery spa just to move on from the disgusting subject he's had to write about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

he can't even challenge him on the basics. 

I've been thinking for years the major networks should just picture there interviewers performing fellatio on the guests. That's probably a more accurate display of whats involved than passing this garbage off as journalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clyburn, Yarmuth say Congress might miss Sept. 27 infrastructure deadline
“That’s why we have so much work going on now,” Jim Clyburn said.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/19/clyburn-yarmuth-congress-infrastructure-deadline-512751

Quote

 

Reps. Jim Clyburn and John Yarmuth both said Sunday that there is a chance Congress will not vote in time to meet the Sept. 27 deadline for the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi set a date of Sept. 27 for the infrastructure bill the Senate passed in August, which some progressives in the party only agreed to support if the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill was voted on as well. Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Clyburn (D-S.C.) , the House majority whip, said that the passage of the infrastructure bill may not be doable in the time frame since the reconciliation package won’t be done by that time.


“That’s why we have so much work going on now,” Clyburn said. “Our leadership is on this. We are working with everybody in all corners of our party. They’re trying to get to a common ground on all of these issues. And now few are very comfortable that we are going to get there.”


He added: “The question is, are we going to work to get to our goal for Sept. 27? Yes, we are going to work hard to reach that goal, and sometimes you have to kind of stop the clock to get to the goal. We’ll do what’s necessary to get there.“

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Watching Chuck Todd interview Sen. Cassidy on Meet the Press is embarrassing. Lie after lie and he can't even challenge him on the basics. 

 

 

6 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I've been thinking for years the major networks should just picture there interviewers performing fellatio on the guests. That's probably a more accurate display of whats involved than passing this garbage off as journalism.

Just saw Tapper do a pretty good interview on Mississippi Governor Reeves (albeit without much barking) where he did a pretty decent job hitting Reeves over the hypocrisy of Reeves calling Biden's vaccine mandate tyranny while his state also mandates plenty of vaccines for school kids, pointing out that if Miss was its own country it would have the second worst rate of per capita COVID deaths in the entire world, and that despite that Reeves has no intention of changing his approach whatsoever. (Reeves, btw, is the same asshole who said not long ago that they weren't afraid of COVID in the South because they believe in an eternal afterlife.)

The best Reeves could do to try to spin away from it is to bring up some whataboutism about how poorly other, mostly red states are doing with COVID, and Tapper didn't even let him get away with that either. (So much for teamwork among red states.) It was a welcome sight to see in the media, and while I have no hope of getting a Democrat in, even on a Doug Jones-Roy Moore type fluke, I do hope things like this help bring down the career of Reeves.

Anyway, here's a link to the full interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One point of leverage against Manchin that hasn't been mentioned much here or otherwise is stripping him of his committee assignments - namely as chair of Energy & Natural Resources.  It may well affect a party change, but the card is there to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

One point of leverage against Manchin that hasn't been mentioned much here or otherwise is stripping him of his committee assignments - namely as chair of Energy & Natural Resources.  It may well affect a party change, but the card is there to play.

I don't see how losing the majority is a card to play against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kaligator said:

I don't see how losing the majority is a card to play against him.

The party switch is the downside.  The card is his chairmanship.  Is the GOP willing to offer that position in return?  Maybe, but I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

The party switch is the downside.  The card is his chairmanship.  Is the GOP willing to offer that position in return?  Maybe, but I doubt it.

I don't see how its a downside either. He gets maybe less power but regains his seats and likely gets more popular in WV? 

I guess I don't understand how forcing him to the other party is a particularly big threat against him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

The party switch is the downside.  The card is his chairmanship.  Is the GOP willing to offer that position in return?  Maybe, but I doubt it.

McConnell would giftwrap it to Manchin if it meant he becomes Majority Leader again. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...