US Politics: Cancelling Democracy

[Zorral]

This is the US Political thread.  It's pretty hard to get more US political than this, yes?

"TPM Reader LM asked me why so many Republicans appear to be leaning into not only the abortion bans Dobbs made inevitable but also the horror story cases that are now also coming to light. I thought other TPM Readers might have the same question so I’m publishing LM’s question and my reply."

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/politics-and-horror-stories

Here's the question re reichs and abortion ban:

Quote

... Their unpopular positions regarding tax cuts for the rich are somewhat understandable in that they benefit personally, and  also they can do some hand-waving to convince some of the people some of the time that everyone will benefit in the long run.  Most of us don’t really understand macroeconomics and are thus susceptible.  But  this?  I just don’t understand how their desire to grow their own personal power is compatible with such a deeply unpopular and wrong-headed policy.  Are they just that cruel?  Out of touch?  Trapped in a bubble of their own making?

Here's JM's reply:

Quote

 

I would say we are starting to see those contradictions play out. In general I think this is the best way to see it: Republicans have long owned maybe a third of the electorate for whom abortion is a universal evil. That has been their electoral army, their electoral foot soldiers. Without them, the current GOP doesn’t exist. It’s not *only* abortion for those voters. But it’s high on the list always.

Republicans have been able to own those voters for decades without having to really face the consequences of actual bans. Now they do. This is why it was always the best for Republicans politically to have abortion bans within reach but never actually arrive at them. Now they’ve arrived at them. This is going to get increasingly uncomfortable for them electorally. But they can’t turn on a majority of their own voters.

The other part of this equation is that it’s not *just power*. In the nature of how electoral politics works a lot of elected Republicans are from that 30% of the electorate. They’re true believers. Not all of them of course. But a lot. 

Really want you have is that the Republican party bought pro-life America on credit and now that loan is due.

 

 

[Tywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Pffft. Such base, ignorant posts. 
 

I shan’t even bother to respond to such low discussions. 

Ikr, @Mlle. Zabzie really did get out of hand there trying to nerd out on tax policy. 

[A True Kaniggit]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Ikr, @Mlle. Zabzie really did get out of hand there trying to nerd out on tax policy. 

Indeed. The solution is so obvious/simple is doesn't even deserve discussion.

So why bother?

Edited July 16, 2022 by A True Kaniggit

[A True Kaniggit]

Do ya'll see the water gathering in large amounts on your windows yet?

[LongRider]

58 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Do ya'll see the water gathering in large amounts on your windows yet?

Just how did you know that?

[A True Kaniggit]

1 minute ago, LongRider said:

Just how did you know that?

Bwahahaha. 

The ongoing tournament of course. 

I’m condescending the hell out of everyone.

[LongRider]

10 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

I’m condescending the hell out of everyone.

As if we didn’t notice.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

We could merge both things, tho. The war on women, and Zabz wanting to nerd out on tax stuff.

What is the tax status of a fetus in one of those talking incubators. Is it fully deductable as a child tax credit?

I mean if those red states want to legal treat them as children, that surely applies to tax law, too. No?

[Secretary of Eumenes]

2 hours ago, JGP said:

I love her.

She's in Illinois, right? 

How long until one of these states (say, Texas) passes a law that encourages their abortion bounty hunters to... persuade... doctors in neighboring states who have provided medical services for women in to report and be charged for commiting murder? 

You think that sounds crazy, I have an ascendant political party to introduce you to.

[A True Kaniggit]

27 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

How long until one of these states (say, Texas) passes a law that encourages their abortion bounty hunters to... persuade... doctors in neighboring states who have provided medical services for women in to report and be charged for commiting murder? 

You think that sounds crazy, I have an ascendant political party to introduce you to.

Well Eek Babble Bauble.

Somebody laid in college.

[Secretary of Eumenes]

36 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Well Eek Babble Bauble.

Somebody laid in college.

I know the place. You say 'crazy' they ask 'how much?'

[Week]

^Perfectly put along the lines of what I'm talking about. If you truly value "life" then here is the minimum to put your money where your mouth is.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

8 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

We could merge both things, tho. The war on women, and Zabz wanting to nerd out on tax stuff.

What is the tax status of a fetus in one of those talking incubators. Is it fully deductable as a child tax credit?

I mean if those red states want to legal treat them as children, that surely applies to tax law, too. No?

Well, actually, the federal income tax system stands alone, so no (not unless they amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).  States can define terms how they wish for their own state tax systems.  Of course, many of those states don’t have an income tax (they prefer mooching off of federal money or not providing services), so it’s moot.  

[Tywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Well, actually, the federal income tax system stands alone, so no (not unless they amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).  States can define terms how they wish for their own state tax systems.  Of course, many of those states don’t have an income tax (they prefer mooching off of federal money or not providing services), so it’s moot.  

Kind way of saying they're full of shit.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Of course, many of those states don’t have an income tax (they prefer mooching off of federal money or not providing services), so it’s moot.  

Florida!  Plus you get tons of toll roads to further disadvantage the poor!

[Spockydog]

They should do this to Republicans, every time a woman or girl is forced to give birth against their will. 

 

[Fez]

13 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yup, he only matters until he doesn't represent the deciding vote. And after that happens he should be striped or demoted. However, that may cause him to quit the party and if not he'll just be that much more toxic in the caucus. Either way once Dems can rid themselves of him they should consider taking that step. To steal a few sports clichés, he's a cancer in the locker room and there could be some addition by subtraction in showing Sen. Kyrie Manchin the door. At this point I have to believe a supermajority of his fellow Dem senators hate his guts and their lives will be improved by simply not having him around anymore, and that goes for the party as a whole. 

It depends. If there's a decent chance he's the 50th vote again after 2024, then probably Democrats won't turn on him too much next session. I think it's relatively unlikely he wins reelection in 2024, but wouldn't entirely rule it out. And it's not out of the realm of possibility 52+ Senate seats next year even if they lose the House, which would mean still being at 50 after 2024 would also be possible.

Also there's some number of Senate Democrats, I have no idea how many but I'd guess around 10, who still like Manchin quite a lot. He takes the heat for them when the rest of the party wants to pass a bill that they don't really want to vote for but would probably have to if not for Manchin sinking things.

Manchin also brings value in being one of the few Democrats still with working relationships with Senate Republicans, which does occasionally bring benefits.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Fez said:

It depends. If there's a decent chance he's the 50th vote again after 2024, then probably Democrats won't turn on him too much next session. I think it's relatively unlikely he wins reelection in 2024, but wouldn't entirely rule it out. And it's not out of the realm of possibility 52+ Senate seats next year even if they lose the House, which would mean still being at 50 after 2024 would also be possible.

Also there's some number of Senate Democrats, I have no idea how many but I'd guess around 10, who still like Manchin quite a lot. He takes the heat for them when the rest of the party wants to pass a bill that they don't really want to vote for but would probably have to if not for Manchin sinking things.

 

I don't think worrying about post-2024 is a compelling reason not to punish him, especially since as mentioned he may have a real tough time keeping his seat in 2024.  But, it is a good point that if, say, instead of Manchin as the 50th vote, it's Sinema, that may be a complication.  It's quite possible stripping Manchin of his spot on Energy may serve to alienate Sinema, so that's something to consider.

In other news, remember that Biden/McConnell deal to nominate an anti-abortion fuck to a federal judgeship?  It's dead.  Why?  Because Rand Paul won't return a blue slip on the potential nominee (Chad Meredith).  So.....thanks Rand Paul?  Typing those words is very uncomfortable.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

On 7/15/2022 at 11:07 AM, Poobah said:

Genuine question, given that this Manchin fellow seems to be a Republican in all but name who exists only to hamstring the Democratic party can't the party do anything to shank him politically? Like how the fuck is he even a member of the party if he does nothing to support the party? Can't they take away his toys, refuse to give him money, tell him he can't have a D next to his name and run a different candidate for his seat? Why do democrats at the grassroots level support and vote for him?

It really is mystifying. He would do better as a Republican, we're told, in his state, he clearly hates democrats (or socialists as he calls them)--I feel like he believes the Democratic party should represent his views. There's just no other explanation. He maybe isn't a far right extremist, so he can't claim R next to his name, but he is no doubt a Reaganite Republican. 

23 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Did anyone expect something different from Manchin this time around?!

Ha, no, but it's so infuriating.

22 hours ago, Fez said:

As much as Manchin sucks in many different ways, he is far more liberal than Collins or Murkowski, who are already outliers in the GOP. And Manchin still fulfills the single most important part of his job without complaint, which is vote in favor of Biden's judicial nominations. Without Manchin, maybe 2 or 3 of Biden's 70 confirmed judges would actually be on the bench (and Jackson would not be on the Supreme Court, so we'd be facing a 7-2 conservative bench soon enough).

Because he does this, and because no other Democrat could win in West Virginia, he remains an invaluable part of the party. Even though he's an asshole who screws over the party in many other ways.

And there are 46 judicial nominees pending for Schumer to jam through before the end of December that will rely on Manchin's vote as well, so there will be no punishment going forward either.

I just feel like Murkowski is a better ally at times than Manchin, except that she is a Republican so her presence in the Senate doesn't give the Dems majority leadership. I know we could probably go down the line and show where he voted with Dems and she didn't, but his Dem votes are so center-to-center-right it's hard to give him much credit. Murkowski at least, once in awhile, takes risks and votes her conscience vs. what the Republicans want. Manchin, I guess, does that too by sticking with the Republicans more often than the Dems. But where Murkowski's votes against the party do seem like moral/ethical breaks from her party (ACA for example), Manchin's votes against the Dems are far more self-serving.

Edited July 16, 2022 by Centrist Simon Steele

[Raja]

Never thought I'd see the words 'Chad Meredith' beside each other, especially so as a name.