-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
- Status
That's why I said it's a waste of time. They are just jacking around to run out the clock until like September/October where they will put a dramatically worse bill than originally created up for reconciliation.
I think the most important thing is to make it seem like Democrats "tried" bi-partisanship.
It's all Democrats can do really, and doing so makes it less likely to anger Moderates and the "Democrats aren't listening to us" narrative.
That said, what it comes down to is if Democrats still move forward, with their bills fully intact, not neutered, and not delayed significantly. Those are the important questions.
if they keep neutering their own bills, just to have Republicans not vote for them anyway, they are only hurting themselves. Democrats need to be loud and clear that if Republicans aren't going to vote on their bills regardless, they they aren't making any changes to them moving forward.
It's all Democrats can do really, and doing so makes it less likely to anger Moderates and the "Democrats aren't listening to us" narrative.
That said, what it comes down to is if Democrats still move forward, with their bills fully intact, not neutered, and not delayed significantly. Those are the important questions.
if they keep neutering their own bills, just to have Republicans not vote for them anyway, they are only hurting themselves. Democrats need to be loud and clear that if Republicans aren't going to vote on their bills regardless, they they aren't making any changes to them moving forward.
I'm not cynical about the timeline on this, all of the infrastructure stuff was targeting summer timeframe even when it was annouced.
Biden needs to keep doing more victory laps on what's going on with COVID. I don't think anyone last September/October was thinking that we'd be on the way out of this as fast as we are now.
Biden needs to keep doing more victory laps on what's going on with COVID. I don't think anyone last September/October was thinking that we'd be on the way out of this as fast as we are now.
I'm sorry, but anyone using a funny Monica Lewinsky tweet to spark a full-blown relitigation of the Tara Reade claims isn't doing so in good faith, regardless of what one thinks about Tara Reade's accusations.
You can't go straight to reconciliation because Manchin will vote No. He wants Biden to try, so he is.
Yes exactly. We have 48 solid yes votes, and that's just the reality. Manchin wants the caucus to try bipartisanship so we have to.
It's exactly like COVID relief. I still remember the posts saying it wasn't going to happen at all because Dems took a fee weeks on these sorts of negotiations. "GOP won't vote for it anyway, why bother!" Because the 50th vote demands it. The 50th vote is always the one who gets what they want.
Yup, when I've talked to the reasonable moderates/center-right people I come across who were all anti-Trump and voted for Biden if they were American and grouse about a lack of bipartisanship, my response is, "I'll believe in a Republican compromise when it comes w/ 10 Senator's who have a reasonable starting point and a willingness to compromise, and until then, it's all posturing."
In general, people also just don't get how long it takes to do anything in Congress.
Is there anything in the infrastructure plan that precludes it from passing through reconciliation? Because that seems like the most obvious outcome, working backwards from "Dems can pass two more bills through reconciliation" through "Dems have not proposed any strictly budgetary bills other than the infrastructure bills." So, if they pass the infrastructure bills through regular order (hypothetically), what do they use reconciliation to pass? .....nothing?
There was talk of doing immigration through reconciliation, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Holy shit I'm sick of these fucking compromises that water down good, popular policy with a party that wants nothing to do with you. We're going back to the Obama days where you do things like hamstring the ACA and negotiate with Boehner multiple times to cut social programs and you're still crucified for it.
Like I said before, accusations thrown against her were that she deliberately lied under oath (which remains unproven and the probe was ultimately dropped), she faked her degree (this was a false narrative) or lied about having a degree (this is caught up in technicalities which highlight how confusing the entire ordeal was, supporting her case that it she believed she did graduate, when you look at the communications provided), and that she lied about being employed aren't true. The information in the article supports that her degree/information on hand was handled in a special way, including an affidavit that mentions her records being handled confidentially because of her being a domestic violence victim. There are a lot of contradictions in general with the story, because of how confusing and complicated her situation was at the time.
So my point is that at a minimum, the narratives pushed against her to discredit her accusations are invalid because they were stated as factual conclusions. The more information we get, the more it helps her argument.
Excuse me? You're gunna have to do a lot better than that if you're going to accuse me of arguing in bad faith. I was responding to a post, not the tweet itself. Check my post history on the subject if you're confused. Otherwise you can keep that shit to yourself.
Last edited:
And according to her lawyer, there were liberties taken to conclude that she did in fact lie under oath, but no proof was provided and the probe was ultimately dropped. More importantly, prosecutors could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that any of this impacted the cases she was involved in, otherwise they would have pressed forward with charges.
They do it every time. One of the reasons Democrats have only had control of the senate this year for the first time in a decade. They are unwilling to do the things necessary that will give them longer control of it. Immediately you had Dems caving to Republican demands regarding nominees and committee assignments and letting McConnell drag things out. Imagine if Dems immediately ended the filibuster and stacked committees? None of this bullshit would be an issue and noone would be talking about it other than Fox News.
How am I suppose to parse this:
California DA launches investigation into Tara Reade testimony
‘We are investigating whether Ms. McCabe gave false testimony under oath,’ said a Monterey County prosecutor.
www.politico.com
Your position is that it's ambiguous whether she lied under oath!?
I wouldn't mind an article from NPR or another trusted outlet that dug around a bit a year later into the various Reade stuff, but you cannot have a Ryan Grim or Nathan Robinson sort of actor doing the reporting. They very clearly had their own agenda in play through the whole thing as they ran PR for Reade, they were big mad about the primaries and wanted the Democratic party burnt to the ground.
yeah that's the reason, not the like +6-+9 R bias of the chamber depending on who you get your analysis from.
yeah that's the reason, not the like +6-+9 R bias of the chamber depending on who you get your analysis from.
I look forward to you believing every. Capitol rioter who case gets dropped by prosecutors because they don't think they can get a win beyond a reasonable doubt that those rioters were totally just want more oversight of vote counts and nothing else, since after all, if a prosecutor doesn't prosecute someone, that means they're totally exonerated and they were telling the complete truth.
Wow, I'm stunned you think the Democrats aren't winning more, is because they aren't doing the things you want them to do.
The actual result of Democrat's trying to eliminate the filibuster is well, it failing, and if they try to stack committees beyond what Joe Manchin wants, Mitch McConnell or Joe Manchin is your new Majority Leader
I actually think Biden is baking in what Republicans will do and making the initial proposal much bigger than he intends them to be. Obama would start with the compromise so there was nowhere else to go but down.
Will it work? probably not, but it gives Biden cover to try and push the bills through with Republican support.
And what do you think could help elimate that bias? Eliminate the filibuster and pass popular legislation and HR.
No, not really.
Harry Truman beat the Nazi's and lost the House a year later.
HR1 is good legislation and will help on the margins, but it's not the savior people are acting like it is. Also, I think there are plenty of things Democrat's could pass, will be fairly popular, but not actually effect voting much, because at the end of the day, a lot of the people will say, "cool about the infrastructure, but you still want to kill babies and let in illegals to take my job."
If it's that cut and dry, why were there no charges? Why was the probe dropped?How am I suppose to parse this:
California DA launches investigation into Tara Reade testimony
‘We are investigating whether Ms. McCabe gave false testimony under oath,’ said a Monterey County prosecutor.
Your position is that it's ambiguous whether she lied under oath!?
What an asinine comparison. We're talking about someone who was involved in a complex/confusing situation involving her degree/graduation due to her status as a domestic abuse survivor, not thugs bashing people at the capitol.
They don't win because Republicans have stacked the odds in their favor in state legislatures by passing restrictive voting laws, each state having an equal number of senate seats despite highly unequal population, and the reputation of not doing anything when they get power. They could mitigate this by ending the filibuster, passing dc statehood, hr1, and other popular things that help normal people. But hey some Democrats want to appear bipartisan with a party that will happily overthrow an election to keep power and will try again in 2024 if they regain control of the House, and have no interest in passing any legislation under a Democratic President no matter how much you negotiate.
Actually reduce the bias? Drift the party away from cosmopolitan interests and start fighting harder for votes in the peripheries of cities. That should be the response from two elections where the value of a vote in (quickly growing) exurban level of density is far greater than a vote in a city, the party on the wrong end of that compensates to meet the reality.
You already answered this yourself in your last post:
Proving she lied and proving her lying had a material impact on the case are two separate things, with differing requirements to prove.
Democrat's only have a reputation of "not doing things" among left-wingers. Among normal people, Democrat's are known for passing lots of things, some of them people didn't like and some things people did like.
In reality, swing voters don't actually like big changes, from either side. Vermont has a Republican Governor right now, because the Democratic Governor tried to pass single payer. Kansas has a Democratic Governor right, because the Republican Governor tried to cut the state budget on education to ribbons.
The 2010 landslide loss happened because people didn't like the ACA, for a variety of reasons, some of which.a more liberal bill wouldn't have helped, and because Obama didn't fix the economy in 20 months.
Even if we pass DC + PR as states, it's still only 50/50 we'd have Senate majority in 2024 due to the states that are up.
They are only going to do this by passing things like an increased minimum wage, which isn't happening without ending the filibuster.
Not true. We can barely get 60% of registered voters to actually turn out for a presidential election. There is a big perception among the general population that neither Republicans or Democrats care about them, because no matter who wins elections nothing changes.
It's effectively dead. Enough Dem senators think it needs to be a constitutional amendment rather than regular legislation like any other statehood vote in history.
Not liking big changes is generally a conservative trait through, like it's the definition of the word lol.
Non-voters aren't waiting for some savior, to do things for them, as much as people want that to be true. They don't turnout because yes, they see all politicians as the same, even people you like, like Bernie & AOC, but not for any deep philosophical reasons, but it's because what all media and society has been telling them for decades upon decades. People have complained about how all politicians are bad for literally centuries.
Also, in addition, our lack of turnout is also along with some suppression, our weird election laws and such.
Looking at the recent past, and other successful candidates around the world who have gotten non-voters in various countries to turn out, if you want non-voters to turnout, for a leftist candidate, get Taylor Swift or Ninja to read some Marx.
Yes, most people are operationally conservative, even if they're ideologically liberal.
Look at the initial reaction to the ACA - even for people it helped, since it was a change in the status quo, people disliked it. Humans in general are fearful of change, for lizard brain reasons, which is why you needed things like children losing arms to risk things like initial labor rights (and increases in access to communication, etc. but I'm simplifying).
I mean, I have no idea why she wrote that post online. I've never heard her response to the contradiction. But they felt it wouldn't be serious enough or significant enough for a jury to convict her for perjury, and they don't believe it impacted her cases. And since the probe was dropped, I don't see why it matters. Unless the narrative is that she's a compulsive liar who therefore also lied about her sexual assault, or something (not saying you, in particular).
Again, there is more information here to counter the attacks against her than paint her as someone who faked her degree and lied about her graduation and employment, which was a narrative being pushed by some who were active posters in this thread. And as we've seen, the reality is that there was confusion surrounding her graduation/credits/degree/transcript, she was employed by the school as she stated, and that she did not invalidate the cases she was an expert witness on via perjury.
Only Manchin AFAIK https://www.vox.com/2021/5/1/22413869/joe-manchin-washington-dc-statehood-democrat and then AOC for PR, right?
Some updated articles in the past few days indicate that it's not over. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/13/us/politics/biden-dc-statehood.html https://newrepublic.com/article/162417/joe-biden-unexpectedly-wades-back-dc-statehood-fight
"Oh uh, I just meant overheard in the lobby of the hotel, erm, I didn't mean to say I had these people in my room. Ahem. A mistake anybody could make"
Her face during this confession is amazing. White woman blinking.
That was very clearly the narrative pushed, and was not solely related to her potential lying under oath.
I understand why Biden is taking his time trying to be bipartisan first, and be caught trying before doing it alone with Dems. You still need Manchin's OK before doing it alone. Theres no way Republicans are gonna go with the 1.7 Trillion bill anyway, so I don't expect the overall infrastructure bill if they do reconciliation to be much different from the initial 2.2 offer.
But I hate how initially Manchin was fine with 4 trillion and suddenly got shaky.
But I hate how initially Manchin was fine with 4 trillion and suddenly got shaky.
I think there's a shift in aesthetics and messaging that wind up being important, as well as doing materially more impactful things (such as reducing Medicare eligibility age, which can be done through reconciliation).
I watched this clip again to the tune of the Butthole Surfer's "Who was in my room last night", A+ highly recommended.
He's so bad at being a liar, to lie like this you actually have to internalize and believe the lie to be true.
We've demonstrated she lied under oath about not having taken the bar. She also lied under oath about being a legislative aide to Biden. (She was a staff assistant.) She has a pattern of lying in self-serving ways. There's a term for that. It's liar!
And someone being a liar matters to me when trying to evaluate important allegations they make.
I'm guessing this very highly paid journalist didn't think to ask him about the insurrectionists in his room?
This is an extremely silly comparison. You realize that, right?
User banned (permanent): Hostility and repeatedly trying to bait members into inflammatory arguments. History of antagonizing other members.
This is incredibly dumb.
Also, that you're using these examples in a way to extrapolate them to her accusations of Biden is disgusting and misogynistic.
I don't think the fact that Kelly Klett wouldn't take her case because she didn't believe she was telling the truth is baseless or misogynistic.
Just because a woman wouldn't take her case doesn't mean Reade isn't the target of misogynist attacks. Also women are capable of contributing to those behaviors as well. I just had a conversation with family about Lewinski for example, and they went on to call her a liar and whore, asking for it, etc.
So now we're accusing an attorney that represents domestic violence victims a misogynist?
And you don't see any problem with lobbing that accusation?
You're twisting my words. I quite literally did not say that. That comment was an aside. I was talking about the narratives I've seen pushed here and elsewhere about her being "crazy", a compulsive liar, etc.
Edit: This is my last post about Reade here. Just disgusting behavior all around.
- Status