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

[CSTowle]

Trump has nothing to hide when it comes to the 6th. He did nothing wrong. Yet he tells four aides to ignore a subpoena from the House committee probing the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and signaling he will go to court to block their testimony to the investigators.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/1...ubpoena-515593


Yep these are the actions of a man with nothing to hide.

I don't mean to defend Trump, but my guess is his default position is to fight any resistance to him legally he can. He's the guy who responds to lawsuits to get him to pay his bills with countersuits, and looked for every unwritten rule and standard that was previously held only through an understanding of the norms and decorum and figured out every way to break or twist them he could. He has zero shame, doesn't care how he looks to those who aren't on his team, and would be willing to do this out of spite even if he had nothing to do with 1/6.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I don't mean to defend Trump, but my guess is his default position is to fight any resistance to him legally he can. He's the guy who responds to lawsuits to get him to pay his bills with countersuits, and looked for every unwritten rule and standard that was previously held only through an understanding of the norms and decorum and figured out every way to break or twist them he could. He has zero shame, doesn't care how he looks to those who aren't on his team, and would be willing to do this out of spite even if he had nothing to do with 1/6.

That's my guess as well. Trump's not about to let anyone in his orbit testify because he sees that as helping Biden and Democrats. Now, if the guys served those subpoenas don't show, they should be immediately arrested, period, full stop, end of story. Call Trump's bluff and see what happens.

[JackDaw]

Frequent recourse to lawyers is often an indicator of really, really suspect business practices.

[4saken1]

The author of this article says "Andrew Yang's Forward Party is directionless. Yang's new party is an uninspiring mess lacking vision or purpose."

Doesn't anyone agree or disagree with this article?

Yang was right about the problems with the current Congress.

Yang has some good ideas. I think that many who support him, though, tend to focus on the things they like and conveniently ignore some things that seem to be less progressive.

Yang IS right about Congress. He is less so about a Third Party being the only way things will change. Does Yang think that if another Party were to replace Democrats that Republican opposition will suddenly disappear and every piece of Progressive legislation would magically pass without hindrance? Democrats in Congress have been fighting for many of the same things that Progressives want. The idea that more Progressive legislators would fare better in a system that heavily favors conservatives is just naive.

[wjowski]

Anyone looking at third parties in our current political system is either a fool or looking to cause intentional sabotage.

[Malvolio]

There absolutely should be more members of the House.

When a state like California has 60 times the population of a state like Wyoming, but only 53 times the representation in the House, something's not right.

[JackDaw]

When a state like California has 60 times the population of a state like Wyoming, but only 53 times the representation in the House, something's not right.

The regional imbalance in UK Members of Parliament is much more skewed than that.

[Hellion]

Hey WBE, probably already on your radar, but this scumbag is back in my backyard:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...ra-2022-514780

[seismic-2]

When a state like California has 60 times the population of a state like Wyoming, but only 53 times the representation in the House, something's not right.

Wyoming has a single Representative, because the Constitution guarantees that every State will have at least one. If things were truly proportionate, then Wyoming would have only a fractional Representative. Of course, in the Senate Wyoming and California are represented exactly equally!

[seismic-2]

There absolutely should be more members of the House.

Making the House larger would probably result in adding more ultra-right wing QAnon nut cases to it. There are already too many of those. ("Any" is too many.)

[Zauriel]

Wyoming has a single Representative, because the Constitution guarantees that every State will have at least one. If things were truly proportionate, then Wyoming would have only a fractional Representative. Of course, in the Senate Wyoming and California are represented exactly equally!

That is correct. Delaware has 400,000 more people than Wyoming and still has one representative in the Congress.

[Mister Mets]

When a state like California has 60 times the population of a state like Wyoming, but only 53 times the representation in the House, something's not right.

For that reason, I like the Wyoming rule where the size of a congressional district would be determined by the smallest state.

There would be an increase in members of Congress, but it wouldn't get out of hand.

Anyone looking at third parties in our current political system is either a fool or looking to cause intentional sabotage.

Yang's approach is definitely misguided here.

He would smarter trying to change things within the Democratic party, recruiting candidates to run in primaries, or making nonpartisan moves, like going for legislation that makes ranked choice voting easier, or creating an institute that endorse candidates on both sides who follow some good government procedures.

A left-leaning third party is going to alienate too many people. If he couldn't get enough support among Democratic primary voters, he's not going to be able to win over the larger more right-leaning general election voters.

[worstblogever]

Hey WBE, probably already on your radar, but this scumbag is back in my backyard:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...ra-2022-514780

I was profiling him in the first year, and I stopped when he, for a time, was a government appointee and not an elected official... if he's back, I'll have to just update the existing profile to cover all the things he did that any other administration would have forced someone's resignation over far, far sooner.

[Tami]

Kyrsten Sinema Wants to Cut $100 Billion in Proposed Climate Funds, Sources Say

WASHINGTON — Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who began her political career with the Green Party and who has voiced alarm over the warming planet, wants to cut at least $100 billion from climate programs in major legislation pending on Capitol Hill, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Sinema is one of two centrist Democrats in the Senate whose votes are crucial to passing two bills that together would comprise President Biden’s legislative agenda: a $1 trillion infrastructure bill and a separate $3.5 trillion budget bill.

Last month, Ms. Sinema told The Arizona Republic, “We know that a changing climate costs Arizonans. And right now, we have the opportunity to pass smart policies to address it — looking forward to that.” In her 2018 run for the Senate, Ms. Sinema was endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters. And she has expressed an interest in using the spending bill to enact a tax or fee on carbon dioxide pollution, which experts say could be among the most effective ways to mitigate global warming.

But Ms. Sinema’s demand to cut spending on climate provisions in the budget bill could force Democrats to cut or shrink programs designed to help poor communities adapt to climate change as well as to help companies adjust as the economy transitions away from fossil fuels to clean energy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted in a letter to colleagues this week that the climate programs would remain. “The climate crisis is a health issue, jobs issue, national security issue and a moral issue to pass the planet on to future generations in a responsible way,” Ms. Pelosi wrote. “This challenge must be addressed with justice for vulnerable communities, who have been hit first and hardest by the climate crisis.”

A spokesman for Ms. Sinema, John LaBombard, wrote in an email, “Given the size and scope of the budget reconciliation proposal — and the lack of detailed legislative language, or even consensus between the Senate and House around several provisions — we are not offering detailed comments on any one proposed piece of the package while those discussions are ongoing.”

Ms. Sinema’s demand to cut climate spending comes as Democrats are hunting for ways to lower the price tag of the broader spending legislation, from the $3.5 trillion initially envisioned by Mr. Biden, down to roughly $2 trillion, in order to win support from Ms. Sinema and Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, without whose votes the measure will not pass.

[Zauriel]

Kyrsten Sinema Wants to Cut $100 Billion in Proposed Climate Funds, Sources Say

Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin are doing exactly what party leadership wants them to do: Preserve the status quo and protect the “Democratic” party’s corporate donors.