I don't really understand the revised change to gerrymandering. Is this better or worse than was originally proposed? Gerrymandering is by far the number #1 issue that needs to be addressed, if nothing else.
-
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.
US PoliEra 2021 |OT 3| Rage Against The Manchin
- Thread starter SSF1991
- Start date
- Status
I don't really understand the revised change to gerrymandering. Is this better or worse than was originally proposed? Gerrymandering is by far the number #1 issue that needs to be addressed, if nothing else.
This is the same guy who said Maxine Waters assaulted him when video showed she touched his arm.
Maxine Waters is 83 years old! I would be embarrassed to allege I was physically assaulted by her!
It seems better by adding federal standards. I can see depending on the teeth of it, might not make as much of a difference.
The original proposal was forcing independent commissions on every state. The new proposal that Manchin is on board with is making a federal gerrymandering standard with mapmaking criteria every state is to follow, and empower the federal court system to enforce that criteria.
I agree, SCOTUS has declined to rule on many cases because they are "political questions." What I am claiming is that this current SCOTUS is very happy to do that when the alternative is helping Democrats, but would be much more inclined to take the case if the result would be helping Republicans. One of the reasons the Courts haven't granted relief in similar cases, like Common Cause v Biden or Blumenthal v Trump, is because the plaintiffs couldn't demonstrate particularized injury. It would be much easier to demonstrate that in this case.
You can't just dismiss any Judicial intervention on Congressional matters as "destroying the separation of powers." The Judiciary's ability to rule on the questions of law is part of the balance of powers! SCOTUS has absolutely gotten involved in matters internal to the Legislative branch before. This isn't some rubicon that they've never crossed, it's a thing they've done before, and would do again if asked.
Consider a hypothetical: VP Harris walks into the Senate, takes her position as President of the Senate, and just randomly declares that the bill received 50 votes, even though a vote wasn't even held. She then sends the bill to Biden and he signs it. What happens? Clearly, there must be some recourse. But if the President of the Senate and the President of the United States work together to illegally pass a law, to whom could we possibly turn? Obviously, SCOTUS would have an interest in this case. Obviously, SCOTUS would need to determine whether or not the law was broken in the passage of this bill. Obviously, they would find that the actions were illegal, and the subsequent bill would be ultra vires. Any defense from Harris that her decision was "internal Senate procedure, protected from interference by the Court" would obviously be ridiculous!
Obviously, we're talking about Harris doing something far less ridiculous than that, when it comes to ignoring the Parliamentarian. But if we've established that the Supreme Court does have an interest in ensuring that bills passed out of the legislature were legally passed, then that's all that's needed.
I should be clear, I don't think it's a good argument they'd be making in court. I, also, think a reasonable Justice would conclude that the law was not broken here. But I think, if the five lunatics we have on the Court were presented with an opportunity to put a stop to one of Biden's major policy agenda items, and the only thing they had to do was rule that some small piece of parliamentary minutiae was violated and that more deference must be paid to the parliamentarian, they would do it in a heartbeat. The fact that they haven't stepped in to weaken the filibuster before does not reassure me that they wouldn't step in to strengthen the filibuster now. I think the legal claim that a GOP Senator could make would be pretty weak, but I think it would be far less ridiculous than many other cases that we've had come through our legal system in the last few years.
No it wouldn't. There is no injury in ignoring the Parliamentarian. The Congress Budget Act doesn't mention the Parliamentarian in regards to reconciliation at all. It does say the Presiding Officer gets to sustain or dismiss arguments on what is extraneous. The Senator whose objection is dismiss has recourse already by appealing the motion/order. They just need 60 votes to successfully appeal. This is not something SCOTUS would rule on other than "It isn't for us to decide the rules of the Senate". Again, this has already been done.
This would be breaking the rules of the Senate and thus need intervention. Ignoring the Parliamentarian is not breaking the rules of the Senate. In fact, the Senators themselves have to bring up points of order on what the Parliamentarian says, it's not automatic. If the Parliamentarian says "this is not for reconciliation" then a Senator must bring that up for it to matter.
Ignoring the Parliamentarian is legal. Their role is advisory. It has been done before.
There's no minutiae here and mandating more deference must be given to the Parliamentarian would change the Parliamentarian's role and Senate rules. This is not something they are in the business of getting into as it opens them up to be retaliated against.
This.
I'm not arguing that it's a good move politically but it's completely legal.
This is the crux of it, for me. This assertion is a legal question. It's something that could be interrogated. I have no confidence the Supreme Court would exercise restraint on this matter. When the Parliamentarian was overruled before, no case was brought before SCOTUS, so of course they made no judgment.
But, maybe that makes this a fruitless discussion. Because, in the broadest points, I think we're in agreement, at least. This very well could be a bad move, politically, regardless. We'd probably lose the marginal Senators in trying it, anyway. It also seems, to both of us, to be pretty legally defensible. If I were a Justice, my arguments would be almost 100% exactly the ones you are making. The real points of disagreement are whether or not one thinks 1) SCOTUS would be willing to intervene, and 2) How they would rule. I'm much more cynical in that regard, I suppose.
The Parliamentarian is not a question of law. Its existence is not enshrined in any law. It's purely a question of Senate rules which may be changed at any time at the whim of a Senate majority. There is no basis for any case there.
AOC at the Met Gala.
This really triggers their Mister Gotcha reflex.
I was really sad to see all the roses on twitter being particularly nasty towards AOC over this, basically calling her a traitor.This really triggers their Mister Gotcha reflex.
I think she was brave wearing this dress around a bunch of filthy rich people, but, maybe that's just me. Also, who cares what the Right say? If they weren't talking about this today, they would instead just be calling her a socialist and a traitor out to destroy Jesus or some shit anyway. they talk about her 24/7.
The Parliamentarian thing isn't really a good vector of discussion, at least in service to finding a solution. Yes, Harris can overrule her, but also that's no different than killing the filibuster, so Manchin would just vote No on everything moving forward. It's not even really kicking the can down the road, but kicking the can into a wall that's 2 inches away from the can.
Inflation hawks in shambles
Inflation hawks in shambles
But as far as people's wallets go, the gas pump says otherwise. It doesn't feel big time yet in general, it is still rising for now.
In terms of messaging, he knows that people translate "inflation" to "my poor wallet" and "running rampant" to "it's actually affecting even me now". The messaging will continue to be effective for a while, even if people are technically correct about inflation's trajectory.
In terms of messaging, he knows that people translate "inflation" to "my poor wallet" and "running rampant" to "it's actually affecting even me now". The messaging will continue to be effective for a while, even if people are technically correct about inflation's trajectory.
🥴
HOUSTON — Up the silver escalators they went, in their MAGA hats and tank tops and College-Republican blue blazers and death-metal merch and "Socialism Distancing" tees and, in one case, a tie-dyed sweatshirt that read "Virginity Rocks." There were roughly 2,000 of them, ages 14 to 24, mostly — though not exclusively — White, roaming the carpeted ballrooms of this Houston hotel, for a right-wing youth summit hosted by Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Tex.). They wore punchy, adolescent politics on their sleeves and excited, nervous grins on their faces. They did not wear masks.
-----------------------
Naturally, a Republican who refuses to be completely loyal to the party's loyalty-obsessed leader is bound to face some blowback. When the speaker list for this youth conference became public, for example, the website Big League Politics, a far-right, conspiracy theory loving, website accused the congressman of hosting a "Never Trumper" RINO (Republican in Name Only) fest.
"I dismiss these people," Crenshaw said of such critics. "And I think they're stupid."
------------------------
His conference was not anti-Trump, but unlike the worshipful right-wing youth bonanzas held by Turning Point USA, it was not exactly a Trump rally, either. His name was hardly mentioned.
"They want to make the party all about Donald Trump," Crenshaw said of the political left — and of some members of his own party — in an interview. "This summit is a reminder of what conservatism is, because it's not anti- or pro- anyone."
On the first full day of the conference, conservatism appeared to be, at the very least, pro-lasers and pro-fog machines. There was a screening of a mini-movie about Crenshaw escaping from antifa kidnappers and parachuting to the roof of the Hilton hotel, before rappelling down from the rafters and appearing onstage in camo pants and a tight black shirt.
Woodward/Costa book: Worried Trump could 'go rogue,' Milley took secret action to protect nuclear weapons
Two days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, President Donald Trump's top military adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, single-handedly took secret action to limit Trump from potentially ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons, according to...
www.cnn.com
There's some stuff about pence in it too.Woodward/Costa book: Worried Trump could 'go rogue,' Milley took secret action to protect nuclear weapons
Two days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, President Donald Trump's top military adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, single-handedly took secret action to limit Trump from potentially ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons, according to...
Fears That Trump Might Launch a Strike Prompted General to Reassure China, Book Says (Published 2021)
In a sign of his concerns, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer also gathered commanders to remind them of the safeguards in the nuclear launch procedures.
Are the conservatives asking to pull his medals yetWoodward/Costa book: Worried Trump could 'go rogue,' Milley took secret action to protect nuclear weapons
Two days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, President Donald Trump's top military adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, single-handedly took secret action to limit Trump from potentially ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons, according to...
Again, the reason why even Bernie Sanders, even if he was VP, wouldn't overrule the parliamentarian is Manchin, Sinema, and possibly other Senators would say, 'lol no', and say they wouldn't support the bill now.
Also, if you want part of the reason minority voters moved right in 2020 -
Also, if you want part of the reason minority voters moved right in 2020 -
Yglesias, Shor, and a few others have been sort of taking the approach that actually all this stuff about misinformation and messaging is sort of masking the real issue, to whit: for most people, practical outcomes really are the be all end all. Proposing policies doesn't get you anywhere, but passing them can.
Yup - Trump gave people money, which got fiscally liberal, and socially moderate or conservative minorities to vote for him, because for them, their problem w/ the GOP was never the racism, but the Paul Ryanism of the party.
Ironically, as the GOP gets more nationalist and xenophobic in the next decade or so, as long as they don't go full Paul Ryan on Medicare or Social Security, the minority vote will continue to rise, as education polarization continues.
People got cheques with Trump's name on it.
Also for Latino population there were also many articles on how lockdowns had big impact on the economic security. That definitely played a role in Teaxs distrcits.
I guess nothing should surprise me anymore, but the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee pushing this crap is truly incredible.
This really triggers their Mister Gotcha reflex.
Wearing a shitpost on your ass is unironically the real 4D chess.
And when he can't get 10 i truly hope i see the shit look on his face. It'll be interesting to see what happens after that.
that's what it comes down to. People got checks. If Dems can extend the child tax credit that will no doubt be a huge point moving forward.
Most people do not see any direct beneficial government intervention in their lives; even when it happens they don't recognize it as such. But the stimulus checks were literally cash into people's pockets, with Trump's name on them. Checks are the most obvious form of government assistance people can experience and Trump putting his name on them made it clear to people who are normally tuned out of this stuff that here was a politician actually stepping in to improve their lives.
I think it's really that simple. Lots of people who do not engage in or care about politics got money and were told right on the check who it was from. And they voted accordingly.
It's all of the above. Checks, misinformation, and even a reduced ground game from Dems due to a pandemic. Anecdotally, friends in the Valley hadn't seen so much misinformation for an election like they saw in this last one. Lots more Conservative memes making the rounds.
This reads like a movie… just unreal that we actually LIVED in this realityWoodward/Costa book: Worried Trump could 'go rogue,' Milley took secret action to protect nuclear weapons
Two days after the January 6 attack on the US Capitol, President Donald Trump's top military adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, single-handedly took secret action to limit Trump from potentially ordering a dangerous military strike or launching nuclear weapons, according to...
The GOP is talking less about cutting Medicare/Medicaid, etc. but they sure aren't talking about any ways to improve them or other social programs (and in many ways still plan to push right-wing economic policy). But will your average voter who might be tempted right nowadays catch on? We can only hope but who knows for sure.
Many Latinos in Texas, especially in the RGV, work in fossil fuel extraction and law enforcement which are right leaning professions. So the swing is less surprising in context.
Ted Cruz promises to fucking filibuster the debt ceiling being raised in October
What a thundercunt
What a thundercunt
Go ahead and impose austerity on ssi/medicaid go on that stove ain't hot no more
Go on thundercunts fiscal conservative
Go full mask off for once with your hatred of the disabled
Go on thundercunts fiscal conservative
Go full mask off for once with your hatred of the disabled
does biden even have the executive authority to do so?
Ton of folks around here seem to just hate the idea of incremental progress but the monthly CTC is a huge deal if nothing else because it's arguably a pilot program for UBI.
Man, the backlash that is going to happen if those checks stop coming come January. We need to get this Reconciliation through just for the impact those checks have for lower income families alone. It's massive.
- Status