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

[Mister Mets]

Relax mets I was being an ass

Understood.

Fair enough, but it is understandable to want to consider the possible health issues of an ex-president who has never revealed his actual medical conditions and who is still a serious and problematic issue to deal with.

We also can't exactly say that Trump would never stoop so low.

Manchin thinks he can get enough votes to restore pre-clearance. He won't. But, really, Manchin and Sinema are the public faces of refusing to end the filibuster and opposing HR 1, but it's unlikely they're alone.

Manchin doesn't necessarily want to restore preclearance. He wants it to apply to all 50 states and territories.

https://www.vox.com/22434054/joe-man...ibuster-senate

Edward-Issac Dovore, writer of a new book behind the scenes of the 2020 campaign, does agree with you that there are other Democratic Senators who agree with Manchin & Sinema.

Manchin is the one who wrote the op-Ed, but he’s not the only Democrat skeptical of all of what’s in the For the People Act — as with eliminating the filibuster or the Tanden nomination, there are a bunch of Democrats more than happy to have him take the heat for them.

That doesn’t mean Manchin isn’t the crux of these decisions—if he took the opposite positions, it would pressure his colleagues to follow suit. But he has a bunch of colleagues who love that he keeps the pressure off them. And he loves being the contrarian for back home politics.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

On the elimination of the filibuster, I'll admit as much as I enjoy discussing politics I'm not as knowledgeable as many posters here on the fine details of things so please enlighten me but it seems to me if we eliminate the filibuster then when (not if, but when) Republicans regain power won't that mean there are no checks on them doing absolutely anything they want to do?

Exactly. If Dems eliminate the filibuster, the GOP upon re-entering government would have the right to legislate without the filibuster from the opposing party exercising veto to stop the discussion coming from floor.

I am totally comfortable with that. That's totally fair, and anyone who calls for eliminating the filibuster thinking "rules for me and not thee" is not being realistic or fair, or democratic.

If that is the case, how is it in any way responsible to call for its elimination?

Take a look at politics in the UK and other parts of the world where you don't have filibuster and yet upon coming to power, Conservative Coalitions nonetheless find themselves checked and hampered to do legislation through a variety of ways.

The filibuster prevents actual politics from being enacted. The actual nature of politics alone is more than a check for all kinds of legislative agendas.

Are the things we'd do in the short term that vital that we're willing to let another Trump come in with free rein and no way to stop him/her from enacting harmful policies?

The filibuster wasn't much use in stopping Trump from doing all the harmful things he did during his presidency. Aside from the tax cut (passed via budget reconciliation) Trump didn't try and pass major legislation, so the Senate under McConnell spent its time stacking the court with GOP judges.

How would our country look today if we'd given Trump those four years with no check on his powers?

The filibuster needs to go. Either we do it or the GOP do it, but either way it has to go and mark my wards within a decade or so, it will be gone.

So the way I see it, it's a race. Either the Dems come out first and get rid of the filibuster, or the GOP will do it. Things would be better if the Dems do it first and go hard and fast.

Do you believe a Democratic Party with free rein would do such a good job that they'd retain a majority indefinitely?

The point is that the Dems are in a position where they need to eliminate the filibuster. It's a matter of legislative integrity mostly because the GOP is becoming fascist and does not believe in representative democracy anymore.

Do you believe if not, that by contrasting what they'd do if given free rein with what we did the public would choose to vote Democratic more often overall?

The filibuster isn't about that. It's a mistake to assume that removing the filibuster will mean that the Dems will be unified and vote as a block for the Dream Basket of Leftist Legislation.

The filibuster simply prevents ordinary politics from taking effect and denying the public a chance to know what the Senate actually stands for and are willing to do.

[Tami]

The filibuster is like a high school that allows students to walk out of class to go to the bathroom at any time and without asking for permission first. Some students will eventually take advantage of it, using it as an excuse to skip class, smoke in the restrooms, or who knows what.

[Mister Mets]

Hypothetical: Joe Biden does the same thing and puts his pants on backwards.
The Right's response would be: "INVOKE THE 25th Amendment!"
My response: "Oh, obviously. President Harris. OK."
The Right: "WAIT, NO, WAIT..."

I suspect plenty of Republicans wouldn't mind Harris as President. They think Biden is more effective and popular, so it's better to be against Harris.

The conservative media has not been able to make Biden see scary.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ishing/619052/

A San Francisco politician is a different story, especially if she's elevated to the White House as the result of Biden's physical and/ or mental decline, which will raise questions about what people in the campaign knew and when.

The scenario you suggest is rather unlikely, but it wouldn't be a bad one for elected Republicans or the conservative media.

On the elimination of the filibuster, I'll admit as much as I enjoy discussing politics I'm not as knowledgeable as many posters here on the fine details of things so please enlighten me but it seems to me if we eliminate the filibuster then when (not if, but when) Republicans regain power won't that mean there are no checks on them doing absolutely anything they want to do?

If that is the case, how is it in any way responsible to call for its elimination? Are the things we'd do in the short term that vital that we're willing to let another Trump come in with free rein and no way to stop him/her from enacting harmful policies? How would our country look today if we'd given Trump those four years with no check on his powers? Even with them he's done harm that may last decades, if not longer.

I'm honestly curious, what's the argument? Do you believe a Democratic Party with free rein would do such a good job that they'd retain a majority indefinitely? Do you believe if not, that by contrasting what they'd do if given free rein with what we did the public would choose to vote Democratic more often overall? Is it simply emotional venting of frustration at the slow pace of progress in our system, and those of you advocating for the end of the filibuster know very well it isn't going anywhere and that it shouldn't but want to scream into the void/internet in frustration? Again, please, enlighten me.

It is worth noting that Mitch McConnell declined to end the filibuster when Trump would have preferred it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...r-trump-678817

There are a few arguments that it's better for Democrats to get rid of the filibuster, even if it makes life easier for future Senate Republicans.

From the Democratic perspective, the good things the party can pass can help would not only help Americans, but help Democrats politically in future elections "See what we've done for you. See what Republicans can take away." It would also mean that when Republicans take back the Senate, they probably won't be able to reverse anything major.

The other argument is that Democrats are the party of federal activism, which is limited by the filibuster. So Republicans aren't likely to want to make radical changes, and can often get what they want through inaction.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It is worth noting that Mitch McConnell declined to end the filibuster when Trump would have preferred it.

That's because McConnell is an evil f--king coward.

The existence of the filibuster provides a safety net for senators for downplaying to voters why they didn't "pass X-legislation" or fulfill this conservative campaign promise or fix the roads and bridges. The GOP can point to the Democrats for not working or compromising with them.

The GOP ultimately do not want real legislation to enter the Senate where senators have to vote and be counted and provide fuel to opponents during primaries and the general election. Because then it would reveal, as in the case of the failure to repeal Obamacare, that the GOP Senators when push come to shove don't want to overturn completely and delete utterly every part of popular legislation by the Dems since the FDR. Obamacare and the GOP threat to remove it or delete it propelled the 2018 Blue Wave, including Kyrsten Sinema whose campaign in 2018 was on a platform to defend Obamacare.

So McConnell's aim was to block and gut the Senate as a body of legislation and convert it completely into an organization of partisan leverage, because again he's fundamentally an evil f--king coward without any principles or real intelligence.

So that's why the filibuster needs to go, and it should be the Dems who shoot first rather than wait for Greedo to aim and miss at point-blank range.

[Tami]

'You're doing it exactly the wrong way': Chris Wallace shreds Joe Manchin for enabling GOP 'obstruction'

"You said you oppose scrapping the filibuster," Wallace noted. "The question I have is whether or not -- and you say that you hope that will bring the parties together -- the question I have is whether or not you're doing it exactly the wrong way?"

"Hear me out on this," the Fox News host continued. "If you were to keep the idea that maybe you would vote to kill the filibuster, wouldn't that give Republicans an incentive to actually negotiate because old Joe Manchin is out there and who knows what he's going to do? By taking it off the table, haven't you empowered Republicans to be obstructionists?"

"I'm just very hopeful and I see good signs," Manchin said. "Give us some time."

Wallace interrupted to point out that Republicans had recently used the filibuster to kill a commission to examine the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"Republicans blocked that," Wallace reminded the senator. "Sen. McConnell, the head of the Republicans in the Senate, says that he's 100% focused on blocking the Biden agenda. Question: Aren't you being naive about this continuing talk about bipartisan cooperation?"

"I'm not being naive," Manchin objected. "I think he's 100% wrong in trying to block all the good things that we're trying to do for America. It would be a lot better if we had participation and we're getting participation."

-------

The Filibuster Is Unconstitutional

Indeed, the framers provided that only “a majority of [the Senate] shall constitute a quorum to do business.” Today that means that only 51 senators must be present for the Senate to do its business. And under Supreme Court precedent, only a majority of the quorum, 26 senators, is necessary to enact legislation. In contrast, the Senate rules require 60 members of the Senate to be both present and favor cutting off debate. How can it be that the Constitution requires the presence of only 51 senators “to do business” and 26 senators to enact legislation, but the will of those majorities can be blocked unless 60 senators are somehow present and consent?

When the framers thought a supermajority was required, they said so. There are six exceptions to majority rule set forth in the Constitution. Two-thirds votes are needed, for example, to remove the president after impeachment or to expel a member of Congress. As important, on the one occasion when the framers debated whether a supermajority was needed for a piece of ordinary legislation, they rejected that idea.

--------

Manchin Vows to Block Democratic Voting Rights Bill and Preserve Filibuster

WASHINGTON — Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia said on Sunday in no uncertain terms that he will not vote for the Democrats’ far-reaching bill to combat voter suppression and restore ethical controls on the presidency shattered by Donald J. Trump.

In an opinion piece in a West Virginia paper, Mr. Manchin, a Democrat, also reiterated his staunch opposition to ending the Senate’s legislative filibuster, which would seem to doom many of President Biden’s most ambitious legislative goals.

“I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act. Furthermore, I will not vote to weaken or eliminate the filibuster,” Mr. Manchin wrote in The Charleston Gazette-Mail, his home state capital’s newspaper.

Under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to end debate and break a filibuster on policy legislation. Republican and Democratic Senates have chipped away at the filibuster, ensuring that most executive branch appointees and judicial nominees can be confirmed with a simple 51-vote majority. A budget rule, called reconciliation, has also been stretched to pass ambitious legislation under the guise of spending and taxation. Major tax cuts pressed by President George W. Bush and Mr. Trump were passed with simple majorities as budget bills, as were parts of the Affordable Care Act and a $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief bill earlier this year.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

'You're doing it exactly the wrong way': Chris Wallace shreds Joe Manchin for enabling GOP 'obstruction'







-------

The Filibuster Is Unconstitutional



--------

Manchin Vows to Block Democratic Voting Rights Bill and Preserve Filibuster

It could be said that Wallace and everyone else browbeating Manchin are "doing it exactly the wrong way". All that does is get Manchin's back up, make him dig in his heels and reinforce his belief that the filibuster has to stay, a hill it's clear he's all too willing to die on. Perhaps his concern that Qpublicans would run amok without the filibuster once they return to power is legitimate, I get that, but his fantasy of bipartisan cooperation between the parties AIN'T happening, and everyone knows it. GQP obstruction is nearly as potent today as it was at any time during Barack Obama's two terms, Moscow Mitch is just marking time and stalling legislation until the midterms, everyone knows that too, and I hope that includes Manchin.

[Tami]

It could be said that Wallace and everyone else browbeating Manchin are "doing it exactly the wrong way". All that does is get Manchin's back up, make him dig in his heels and reinforce his belief that the filibuster has to stay, a hill it's clear he's all too willing to die on. Perhaps his concern that Qpublicans would run amok without the filibuster once they return to power is legitimate, I get that, but his fantasy of bipartisan cooperation between the parties AIN'T happening, and everyone knows it. GQP obstruction is nearly as potent today as it was at any time during Barack Obama's two terms, Moscow Mitch is just marking time and stalling legislation until the midterms, everyone knows that too, and I hope that includes Manchin.

Well, as long as the Republicans can keep Biden and the Democrats from passing any legislation or doing any of the things they promised to do, the greater the chance that more Republicans will be elected into office. In which case, it won't matter since they will have control and a willingness to abuse that power in whatever ways they want. They can remove the filibuster or keep it, or make it impossible for any Democrat in Congress to do anything.

In the end, Manchin loses and takes down the rest of his fellow Democrats with him.

[Gray Lensman]

Well, as long as the Republicans can keep Biden and the Democrats from passing any legislation or doing any of the things they promised to do, the greater the chance that more Republicans will be elected into office. In which case, it won't matter since they will have control and a willingness to abuse that power in whatever ways they want. They can remove the filibuster or keep it, or make it impossible for any Democrat in Congress to do anything.

In the end, Manchin loses and takes down the rest of his fellow Democrats with him.

The moment the filibuster gets in McQuisling's way he'll ditch it just like he ditched his Supreme Court rule about nominations during an election cycle. The only reason he didn't kill it in 2017 was that he was smart enough to realize he might need it again in a few years.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Not a fan of Trump, but probably should hold up on making fun of forgetful people who may not have control of all their bodily functions while also supporting Joe Biden. I support him too, but watching him speak sometimes feels like watching an 8 year old kid trying to properly recite their lines in in a school play in that I cringe at times and think to myself "oh please don't f##k this up" or "c'mon Joe, you can do it". Less so now that he has the Presidency, but it was pretty bad for a while.

And, if true, also pretty far down the list as far as objectionable traits he has. Almost makes you feel sympathetic, humanizes him. Almost.

My question is why didn't his aides, family or friends around him corrected him? Why did they allowed him to make a fool of himself?

[WestPhillyPunisher]

My question is why didn't his aides, family or friends around him corrected him? Why did they allowed him to make a fool of himself?

You try telling Trump something he doesn't want to hear or might piss him off and see how far that gets you. Short answer, not very far.

[Tami]

My question is why didn't his aides, family or friends around him corrected him? Why did they allowed him to make a fool of himself?

These are the same people who allowed Trump to walk into Air Force One with a piece of toilet paper stuck to his shoe.

[worstblogever]

Update on Seditious GOP Congressman Mo Brooks dodging process servers regarding the insurrection lawsuit...

His wife was served at his home. Brooks then proceeded to post on social media that "his house was broken into" to do so. Which is, stop me if you've heard Mo Brooks do this before, a lie.

[Tami]

Arizona’s Horrifying Plan to Bring Back the Gas Chamber

Late last month, Americans learned of the latest twist in the efforts of death penalty states to keep their execution machinery running when the Guardian revealed Arizona’s plan to revive the gas chamber. This news followed on the heels of continuing moves by the state’s Republican officeholders to resume putting inmates to death after a seven-year hiatus.

Arizona stopped executions after the botched lethal injection of Joseph Wood in 2014. Wood died after two hours during which time he was injected with a total of 750 mg of midazolam and hydromorphone, 15 times the amount specified in the state’s execution protocol. His death was just one of many such gruesome spectacles that have marked lethal injection’s recent history.

The plan to add death by hydrogen cyanide, the same gas (also known as Zyklon B) used by the Nazis at Auschwitz, reveals the lengths to which proponents of capital punishment will go to keep the machinery of death running. And adding the gas chamber to lethal injection as an approved method of execution ignores the ugly truth of the gas chamber’s own gruesome history.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Arizona’s Horrifying Plan to Bring Back the Gas Chamber

That is beyond inhuman. Qpublicans have ZERO business calling themselves "The Pro-Life Party" if they're doing sick **** like this, even worse when you consider the death penalty hasn't done **** to curtail, never mind stop violent crime. This is nothing more than Old Testament eye for an eye nonsense.