All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Mister Mets]

Well...

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...ki-2022-474028

It'll be interesting to see how active he is in a campaign in Alaska given how much he hates airplanes.

LOL.

Apparently, the GOP went off to sleep and Schumer took advantage to get cloture on Merrick Garland and moved on the final vote next week. AG Garland here we come.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2021/0...-a-final-vote/

Garland was on track to become AG no matter what Cotton did to delay it.

I think it is funny that on a weekend where Trump literally issues an official statement that he will campaign against a sitting GOP senator, people cannot let go of "Democrats in dissaray."

Do you think it's good for Republicans that Trump wants to campaign against Murkowski?

I find the interest/obsession with the Royal Family to be weird, seems like an idea that's long past its expiration date. I hear arguments they're good for tourism, but honestly I think you'd see no real difference without them. Even the papers would find something (like celebrity obsession) to focus on. But ultimately is it any different from the Kardashians or even focus on the more salacious personal details of politicians lives here in the US? Feel like it's a lateral move.

As to the knock on the Biden Administration and why they'll continue to be criticized, I feel it's been summed up nicely by comparing them to the Republicans. Republicans fight, break rules, ignore norms, outright lie to your face and the faces of their supporters, and risk things to get what they want done. They'll actively suppress votes from non-Republican voters, lie about it on one show, then (while knowing they're being recorded) tell the truth about it at a fundraiser. They are better at their jobs.

In fairness, nobody who voted for Biden thought he was a champion of the people or Democratic causes. He's a career politician who's (well, used to be) great with a soundbite when he's not putting his foot in his mouth and great in person. He's as middle of the road as they come. It's a step up from the triangulation move-to-the-right of the Clintons, but a small step. And a gigantic f##king leap up from the fascist/racist/sever or weaken all ties and alliances around the world cluster of f##k we just came out of.

That counts for something and it's the reason he got as many votes as he did. But people still want things to get done. And we lucked into having a tied Senate. And yes, Manchin and a few others (sadly looks like my state's Shaheen and Hassan, might have to factor that in when primaries come up again) are going to drag their feet. But if you have the political will you can force things to get done. "Where there's a will there's a way". If we had half of the fight the other side did we'd have a $15 minimum wage and an Affordable Care Act that hadn't been watered down several times to attain exactly zero Republican votes.

If you're serious about getting things done you can't keep playing by this imaginary rulebook that says you have be nice, and do things properly and in order, and take others feelings into consideration, etc. The other side is not doing that. They haven't been for a long time, and I don't know if you've noticed but they're only getting worse. Probably has something to do with them having been successful at accomplishing their goals. There's always a reason not to do something. "Primaries are coming up." "Oh, Senator so-and-so's in a tough district, can't lose her" "We'll get to that eventually, but we have to take things slow" We've all heard it again and again, some of us for decades. Sure, these fights are tough and some are unwinnable currently. But dang it, I want to see them fighting. Or at least believe they want to. Until then they deserve the criticism.

If the royal family is good for tourism, you could swap them out every few years for someone new. Tourism will not decline with five years of King Paul McCartney.

On a more serious question, how would Democrats get more by fighting more? What would that look like? Should they reject the Covid Relief bill until the minimum wage is 15 dollars an hour?

[MajorHoy]

Wake up this morning to hear on UK radio that Harry and Meghan interview on Oprah show will attract biggest US interview audience since Oprah interviewed Michael Jackson.

Amazed that anybody is interested.

Well, some in the US still find the concept of "Royalty" with its kings, queens, princes / princesses to be fascinating. How many little girls want to pretend they're princesses themselves?

And you throw in things like its Harry (Princess Diana's son) and a former US TV star who married into Royalty (Megan), plus it's Oprah Winfrey doing the interview, and all of that adds to the imagery.

Besides, we here in the US aren't paying to support the lifestyles of all those royals like people from the UK are.

[Kusanagi]

Well, some in the US still find the concept of "Royalty" with its kings, queens, princes / princesses to be fascinating. How many little girls want to pretend they're princesses themselves?

And you throw in things like its Harry (Princess Diana's son) and a former US TV star who married into Royalty (Megan), plus it's Oprah Winfrey doing the interview, and all of that adds to the imagery.

Besides, we here in the US aren't paying to support the lifestyles of all those royals like people from the UK are.

The last bit is the important thing, the Royals are harmless in the US because they don't have power (or at least no more power than any celebrity with money), and the tax payer isn't footing the bill. So this is just a mix of celebrity gossip and scandal/the exotic nature of royalty.

[TheDarman]

Garland was on track to become AG no matter what Cotton did to delay it.

Procedural hurdles are stalls. Everyone knows that. Doesn’t stop them from trying to stall to show their constituents they are giving the president what-for.

Do you think it's good for Republicans that Trump wants to campaign against Murkowski?

No, but I think that’s his point. All the stories right now are about why we had to fight to keep Manchin on board. Meanwhile, Trump is actively campaigning to get incumbent Senators on his side of the aisle taken out. That’s kinda remarkable how normalized that is. It would be a huge story if Sanders was going to West Virginia to try to primary Manchin.

On a more serious question, how would Democrats get more by fighting more? What would that look like? Should they reject the Covid Relief bill until the minimum wage is 15 dollars an hour?

Frankly, I think it is clear it is bad politics to hold up a time-sensitive piece of legislation for a provision that doesn’t even have support from 8 members of the Democratic Senate caucus (at least in part—I’m sure a few of them decry the lack of bipartisanship to raise it).

If Democrats are really concerned with getting a minimum wage hike, it might be better to tie it to an omnibus immigration reform package. Romney and Cotton argued for increasing the minimum wage to ten dollars along with promoting a nationwide e-Verify. Put that in an immigration bill so that it a) ensures the incentives for continued undocumented immigration go down, but you get b) the people who are already here the ability to become residents and eventually citizens and c) a reform on immigration processes that increase limits on Visas and get economic refugees into the country faster. Plus, this seems to be a way to peel off a few Republican votes for the proposal. Manchin, for his part, is willing to raise it to $11 an hour. It is a shame it is so low, but that is an increase of almost $4 an hour. Democrats need to know when to notch a victory. Get Manchin’s proposal in there—maybe fight to raise it to $12–and get that immigration bill through Congress.

[PaulBullion]

Do you think it's good for Republicans that Trump wants to campaign against Murkowski?

what


.................

[PaulBullion]

No, but I think that’s his point. All the stories right now are about why we had to fight to keep Manchin on board. Meanwhile, Trump is actively campaigning to get incumbent Senators on his side of the aisle taken out. That’s kinda remarkable how normalized that is. It would be a huge story if Sanders was going to West Virginia to try to primary Manchin.

Thank you! I thought I could not have been clearer in my intent.

[Bruce Wayne]

Wake up this morning to hear on UK radio that Harry and Meghan interview on Oprah show will attract biggest US interview audience since Oprah interviewed Michael Jackson.

Amazed that anybody is interested.

Most people in the US aren't aware of the problematic aspects of the Royal Family and aren't directly effected by their actions. If the Royal Family were for example secretly exercising Royal Consent over the political process in America, that'd be a different story. But since most of their questionable actions effect people in the UK, people have far less of a problem with them.

[PwrdOn]

Well, some in the US still find the concept of "Royalty" with its kings, queens, princes / princesses to be fascinating. How many little girls want to pretend they're princesses themselves?

And you throw in things like its Harry (Princess Diana's son) and a former US TV star who married into Royalty (Megan), plus it's Oprah Winfrey doing the interview, and all of that adds to the imagery.

Besides, we here in the US aren't paying to support the lifestyles of all those royals like people from the UK are.

Our obsession with royalty does kind of encapsulate a lot of the problems with our society in microcosm. We so desperately want to believe in this escapist fairy tale, and are content to just chalk up the many indiscretions to a few bad apples here, but of course the truth of the matter is that the entire institution of the monarchy was rotten from the jump and that no amount of wealth or glamor can cover that up. The royals are nothing more than decidedly mediocre individuals who don't contribute anything of value, and asking them to continue playing this silly role so that the rest of us can live out our silly fantasies through them is bound to leave us disappointed.

[godisawesome]

With the whole “Democrats are failing/doing what they can/at war/yada yada yada,” it’s important to note that there are a lot of conflicts between the performative aspect of all politics, and the functional aspect of all politics, as well as the fact that the Democrats are a coalition in their current form, with all the issues that implies.

You *do* need swagger, fighting, and pushing the bar forward as much as possible, as that’s how you keep votes and support staff invested and moving forward. But you also need the purely pragmatic, non-nonsense, quick-to-act functionary. And those two sections of politics are often opposed to each other: Biden, AOC, Schumer, Sinema, Warren, Mancin and Sanders can’t get anything done without being pragmatic at times, but each represents a faction as well that wants to control the narrative going forward without losing the power of being in the majority.

All are aware of the stakes, and each has a different POV for how to best pursue the long term objectives the country needs. But I’d argue the more public spats between the Dems come in part because their base and they themselves all know that - it creates a more complex and clear narrative struggle between the Dems that the GQP doesn’t have because they and their base don’t care about the information.

So you get this thing where all a GQP member has to do is go full throttle into crazy, purely-emotion-based campaigning at all levels... but Dems have to engage with the competing intellectual and ethical views of their base and themselves, which the GQP just doesn’t do.

Everyone knows that surrendering cohesiveness and allowing the GQP to return is a nightmare scenario... but they also know that in order to shape the party, they and their supporters have to wage some amount of war with each other, not as a cut throat, Game Of Thrones-style scenario, but because getting united political will is harder when people think more than their opponents.

[Tami]

Biden marks ‘Bloody Sunday’ by signing voting rights order

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new executive order from President Joe Biden directs federal agencies to take a series of steps to promote voting access, a move that comes as congressional Democrats press for a sweeping voting and elections bill to counter efforts to restrict voting access.

His plan was announced during a recorded address on the 56th commemoration of “Bloody Sunday,” the 1965 incident in which some 600 civil rights activists were viciously beaten by state troopers as they tried to march for voting rights in Selma, Alabama.

Biden’s order includes several modest provisions. It directs federal agencies to expand access to voter registration and election information, calls on the heads of agencies to come up with plans to give federal employees time off to vote or volunteer as nonpartisan poll workers, and pushes an overhaul of the government’s Vote.gov website.

Democrats are attempting to solidify support for House Resolution 1, which touches on virtually every aspect of the electoral process. It was approved Wednesday on a near party-line vote, 220-210.

The voting rights bill includes provisions to restrict partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts, strike down hurdles to voting and bring transparency to a murky campaign finance system that allows wealthy donors to anonymously bankroll political causes.

Democrats say the bill will help stifle voter suppression attempts, while Republicans have cast the bill as unwanted federal interference in states’ authority to conduct their own elections.

The bill’s fate is far from certain in the closely divided Senate. Conservative groups have undertaken a $5 million campaign to try persuade moderate Senate Democrats to oppose rule changes needed to pass the measure.

[Bruce Wayne]

That will do nothing. The Supreme Court will continue to water down any voter right protections created by the Dems to give Republicans the edge. Much like how they weaponized free speech with Citizens United to allow plutocrats to take seize control of the political system.

[babyblob]

Our obsession with royalty does kind of encapsulate a lot of the problems with our society in microcosm. We so desperately want to believe in this escapist fairy tale, and are content to just chalk up the many indiscretions to a few bad apples here, but of course the truth of the matter is that the entire institution of the monarchy was rotten from the jump and that no amount of wealth or glamor can cover that up. The royals are nothing more than decidedly mediocre individuals who don't contribute anything of value, and asking them to continue playing this silly role so that the rest of us can live out our silly fantasies through them is bound to leave us disappointed.

Its not just the royal family. It is pretty much all celebrates. From the big stars to the Youtube influencers. How many celb gossip shows are there? And Americans lift them to such high standards that there is even a Stars are like us section in one of the magazine that show stars pumping their own gas, walking the dog or buying milk like that is a huge deal! I mean Hell one of the stars on masked singer was just famous for being a friend of Blac Chyna and being on Youtube.

Who is dating who? Who said what? What kind of coffee do they drink at Starbucks? To the point people let their views and opinions get changed based on some stars twitter comments.

it is crazy,

[Tami]

That will do nothing. The Supreme Court will continue to water down any voter right protections created by the Dems to give Republicans the edge. Much like how they weaponized free speech with Citizens United to allow plutocrats to take seize control of the political system.

Democrats have two years to figure out how to make it stick. If there is a way, they will find it.

[Jack Dracula]

With the whole “Democrats are failing/doing what they can/at war/yada yada yada,” it’s important to note that there are a lot of conflicts between the performative aspect of all politics, and the functional aspect of all politics, as well as the fact that the Democrats are a coalition in their current form, with all the issues that implies.

You *do* need swagger, fighting, and pushing the bar forward as much as possible, as that’s how you keep votes and support staff invested and moving forward. But you also need the purely pragmatic, non-nonsense, quick-to-act functionary. And those two sections of politics are often opposed to each other: Biden, AOC, Schumer, Sinema, Warren, Mancin and Sanders can’t get anything done without being pragmatic at times, but each represents a faction as well that wants to control the narrative going forward without losing the power of being in the majority.

All are aware of the stakes, and each has a different POV for how to best pursue the long term objectives the country needs. But I’d argue the more public spats between the Dems come in part because their base and they themselves all know that - it creates a more complex and clear narrative struggle between the Dems that the GQP doesn’t have because they and their base don’t care about the information.

So you get this thing where all a GQP member has to do is go full throttle into crazy, purely-emotion-based campaigning at all levels... but Dems have to engage with the competing intellectual and ethical views of their base and themselves, which the GQP just doesn’t do.

Everyone knows that surrendering cohesiveness and allowing the GQP to return is a nightmare scenario... but they also know that in order to shape the party, they and their supporters have to wage some amount of war with each other, not as a cut throat, Game Of Thrones-style scenario, but because getting united political will is harder when people think more than their opponents.

Well said.

[CaptainEurope]

With the whole “Democrats are failing/doing what they can/at war/yada yada yada,” it’s important to note that there are a lot of conflicts between the performative aspect of all politics, and the functional aspect of all politics, as well as the fact that the Democrats are a coalition in their current form, with all the issues that implies.

You *do* need swagger, fighting, and pushing the bar forward as much as possible, as that’s how you keep votes and support staff invested and moving forward. But you also need the purely pragmatic, non-nonsense, quick-to-act functionary. And those two sections of politics are often opposed to each other: Biden, AOC, Schumer, Sinema, Warren, Mancin and Sanders can’t get anything done without being pragmatic at times, but each represents a faction as well that wants to control the narrative going forward without losing the power of being in the majority.

All are aware of the stakes, and each has a different POV for how to best pursue the long term objectives the country needs. But I’d argue the more public spats between the Dems come in part because their base and they themselves all know that - it creates a more complex and clear narrative struggle between the Dems that the GQP doesn’t have because they and their base don’t care about the information.

So you get this thing where all a GQP member has to do is go full throttle into crazy, purely-emotion-based campaigning at all levels... but Dems have to engage with the competing intellectual and ethical views of their base and themselves, which the GQP just doesn’t do.

Everyone knows that surrendering cohesiveness and allowing the GQP to return is a nightmare scenario... but they also know that in order to shape the party, they and their supporters have to wage some amount of war with each other, not as a cut throat, Game Of Thrones-style scenario, but because getting united political will is harder when people think more than their opponents.

As of now, Biden still seems to have much higher approval ratings than Trump had in his wildest syphilitic fever dreams.