Jump to content

US politics: Red Tide Rising


IheartIheartTesla

Recommended Posts

Funding other, 'easier' candidates is stupid unless you have so much money that you can't spend it on anything else. I would much rather see that money going into more local races, more state races, and being used to promote and improve other candidates elsewhere - even if they're not winners - so that the bench is larger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depth or rather lack of depth is not disqualification issue for parties in the US (or elsewhere tbf). Just look at any GOP primary. If you want to improve the political selection process, you better find a way to improve the quality of the electorate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

the claim being that they'll burden the electric grid so much society will break down. Particularly at a time blackouts are a concern because of heat waves.

The manufacture of crypro currency, in order to opt out of a national currency, money system and thus taxes! puts no stress on either the power or internet connective at all, amirite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Manchin says he and Schumer have a deal that includes energy, taxes
The apparent deal breaks a deadlock.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/27/manchin-schumer-senate-deal-energy-taxes-00048325

 

I really hope this passes.  It's not everything we wanted (at all), but it is a lot better than nothing.  370 billion on clean energy/climate change will make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Manchin says he and Schumer have a deal that includes energy, taxes
The apparent deal breaks a deadlock.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/27/manchin-schumer-senate-deal-energy-taxes-00048325

 

And here he is making more rounds with the press. At this point, he'll change his mind by the end of the week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KalVsWade said:

I would much rather see that money going into more local races, more state races, and being used to promote and improve other candidates elsewhere - even if they're not winners - so that the bench is larger. 

The DCCC/DSCC funds can't go into "local or state races."  I know the FEC is toothless but that's blatantly illegal.  Could be allocated to "safe" districts for party building though, sure, 100% agree with that.

11 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

370 billion on clean energy/climate change will make a difference.

Yeah that was the most (pleasantly) surprising thing about the details I've read so far.  That's not far off from the $500 billion in the deal he killed in December.  I'll be very happy if I'm wrong there, but like others I'll believe it when Manchin casts his yay vote on the floor.  Also, the article I read on the details noted Sinema refused to give an immediate comment...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I really hope this passes.  It's not everything we wanted (at all), but it is a lot better than nothing.  370 billion on clean energy/climate change will make a difference.

The tax stuff is…head scratcher.  The carried interest stuff scores only $14 b and kicks in only in 2023.  You can do a lot in 12 months.  The corporate AMT is a great headline but based on the late unlamented BURP.  The JCT and Treasury know it has serious problems from a technical perspective.  It’s a great headline though.  I give it two years in force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

The tax stuff is…head scratcher.  The carried interest stuff scores only $14 b and kicks in only in 2023.  You can do a lot in 12 months.  The corporate AMT is a great headline but based on the late unlamented BURP.  The JCT and Treasury know it has serious problems from a technical perspective.  It’s a great headline though.  I give it two years in force.

Which is intentional. Democrats bow to their corporate overlords as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

The DCCC/DSCC funds can't go into "local or state races."  I know the FEC is toothless but that's blatantly illegal.  Could be allocated to "safe" districts for party building though, sure, 100% agree with that.

How about allocating a pile of that cash to 'unsafe' districts for the same reason? Build up the D machine in supposedly safe R areas? Or does that give half the DCCC automatic heart failure?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ThinkerX said:

How about allocating a pile of that cash to 'unsafe' districts for the same reason? Build up the D machine in supposedly safe R areas? Or does that give half the DCCC automatic heart failure?

 

Not sure what you're asking here.  Investing in safe Republican districts is exactly what I meant.  Investing in "unsafe" districts is what congressional campaign committees do already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not sure what you're asking here.  Investing in safe Republican districts is exactly what I meant.  Investing in "unsafe" districts is what congressional campaign committees do already.

My apologies, I thought you meant investing only in 'safe' D districts. Who knows? Maybe a few AOC type candidates can seriously rattle some R cages in a couple of those places, maybe even score a fluke victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

My apologies, I thought you meant investing only in 'safe' D districts.

Ah, sorry, definitely meant safe R districts.  Investing in safe D districts doesn't make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DMC said:

I know the FEC is toothless but that's blatantly illegal. 

I haven't followed up on the issue in some time because real campaign finance reform is dead right now, but can't they just use pass throughs to redistribute the money regardless of how safe a district is or isn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I haven't followed up on the issue in some time because real campaign finance reform is dead right now, but can't they just use pass throughs to redistribute the money regardless of how safe a district is or isn't?

Huh?  Lots of confusion tonight.  My comment you quoted had nothing to do with investing in US congressional districts, safe or otherwise.  Of course the DCCC can invest in any US congressional race.

I was saying the DCCC can't invest in local or state elections, i.e. city council, school board, or even gubernatorial campaigns.  That's what I thought Kal was referring to, but clearly I'm confusing things tonight.  I blame it on not getting high in six days now.

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...