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

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Kind of beyond nutsy

The City Commission of Oroville, CA voted 6-1 to declare itself and independent “constitutional republic,” vowing not to follow federal and state covid policies.

"A republic if you can keep it" -- Benjamin Franklin, lol.

Oroville, CA is a tiny, mostly GOP leaning district. I doubt this comedy will go too far.

Reminds me of that Don Rosa Scrooge story where he tries to carve the Money Bin into a separate nation only to find out why you can't do that.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

And we have to keep our fingers crossed to see how many times the Senate can revamp this sucker if at all via reconciliation, and hope Manchin and Synema aren't dips***s when those moments come up.

With the latter, she's seemingly been voting against things she campaigned on for corporate interests, but does so in ways solely for the theatric value. She's trying to make an impression so she can either run as a Republican in 2024, or an Independent. The latter is far more likely, because Arizona's GOP is way too bats*** and extreme to trust her to vote as conservatively as they would demand.

Sinema is so much worse than Manchin to me. Manchin is who he has always been and we tolerated him because he was a useful vote, he’s no surprise.

Sinema….. she’s just straight bought off

[JB]

Whether or not they have anything they can tout for the midterms may depend on how fast they can roll the stuff they do have out to the public. If people can see stuff being built and repaired, they won't care whether or not it passed last week, last year, or last decade - just that they are seeing it NOW.

Well said. Firing up the construction repairs and restoration ASAP will help change the mood greatly.

[TheDarman]

I take it we are talking about the one that already got a lot of what would matter hacked off of it even it it does wind up passing?

Again, C minus. No waffles.

Never mind things like meaningful police reform...

A C-minus?

For getting the largest single investment in physical infrastructure in American history through the most divided Congress in modern history? For getting an infrastructure bill that neither President Obama or President Trump were successful at getting, despite their support for it?

I get you might not want to grade on a curve, but I don’t know, honestly, which president gets an A in this scenario.

This isn’t like FDR passing his economic agenda in Congress. This would be more like FDR actually trying to get civil rights legislation done against the folks in his party who were happy with segregation. And he didn’t do that. Instead, he allowed red-lining and prevented people of color from getting in on his programs.

The only president in recent history that might have arguably done better was LBJ. And LBJ could afford far more defections.

[Adam Allen]

The GOP is great at scaring their base for votes. First Obama and the socialist scare, then Hillary, then Dems are taking your rights by making you wear masks, then Defund the Police, and the always popular the Big Steal, then they are taking your rights away with Vaccine mandates, not CRT, and they always have the old stand by of Oh No Immigrants!

They are not a party of policy, but a party of fear and lies. "We have nothing valid to say so lets do smoke and mirrors. And as we have seen in the media and a coupe people in this board people are buying and thanking the GOP for turning them into cult members .

Even those of us who hate the GOP cant deny they are great at whipping up their base and controlling the narrative because they go dirty and The Dems really cant match that even most of the time. They are fine letting the GOP control the narrative in the media because they try so hard to work together and take the high road. And unless there is a really hot button issue going on The Dems just dont seem as excited or fired up as the core base of the GOP is day to day.

What sucks for the Dems is that not playing dirty -- by trying to work together and at least appearing to have some kind of principles, and really work towards helping the greater majority of people -- they are appealing to their base. I think on average, the people who vote Democrat are the ones who really want to believe in some kind of ideals, who want politics to not just be dirty and corrupt, and who want to hold out some hope the system really can work for the betterment of everybody.

So, Dem politicians could abandon all of that, but doing it wouldn't help them, because it would just confirm voter fears that there really is no difference between the two parties, and that the political system really is just hopelessly broken and corrupt. It's like the difference between how gracelessly Trump left office, even still today refusing to admit he lost, and Obama's telling everyone he understood their frustration, but that this is how the system works, and we should hope the new president does well in his role. On one hand, none of us wanted to hear that about the dumpster fire who was moving into the Oval Office, but on the other, it was trying to reaffirm some kind of faith in the system.

It made sense that he would want to reaffirm that, as it makes sense that Dem voters want to see what at least appears some kind of integrity from the people they vote for. It just sucks, because -- yeah, it's hard to see one side cheating in every way possible, while the other seems forever stuck being cheated. I don't think there's any easy way for Dem politicians to get out of that bind, though.

[babyblob]

What sucks for the Dems is that not playing dirty -- by trying to work together and at least appearing to have some kind of principles, and really work towards helping the greater majority of people -- they are appealing to their base. I think on average, the people who vote Democrat are the ones who really want to believe in some kind of ideals, who want politics to not just be dirty and corrupt, and who want to hold out some hope the system really can work for the betterment of everybody.

So, Dem politicians could abandon all of that, but doing it wouldn't help them, because it would just confirm voter fears that there really is no difference between the two parties, and that the political system really is just hopelessly broken and corrupt. It's like the difference between how gracelessly Trump left office, even still today refusing to admit he lost, and Obama's telling everyone he understood their frustration, but that this is how the system works, and we should hope the new president does well in his role. On one hand, none of us wanted to hear that about the dumpster fire who was moving into the Oval Office, but on the other, it was trying to reaffirm some kind of faith in the system.

It made sense that he would want to reaffirm that, as it makes sense that Dem voters want to see what at least appears some kind of integrity from the people they vote for. It just sucks, because -- yeah, it's hard to see one side cheating in every way possible, while the other seems forever stuck being cheated. I don't think there's any easy way for Dem politicians to get out of that bind, though.

The Dems dont have to be corrupt to win. But what they should do is speak up more. When ever they make the slightest mistake or whenever the GOP wants to make up a lie they are all over the media ranting and raving about how bad the Dems are, how they are destroying the country with socialism, rigging and stealing elections, and legging immigrants into our country to sell our kids drugs, and rape our white women and brainwash our kids with CRT in schools. And you know what. The Dems let them. They are not on tv talking about how batshit crazy the GOP has become, they rarely point out how these conspiracy theories make no sense and only a brain dead fool would buy into them, they rarely point out the flaws in what the GOP say. They always just go "Well we are above that kind of thing. We dont want to mud sling and go to that level." Remember how many Dems flipped out when Clinton called Trumpers a basket of Deplorable? Hell she was calling it out like it is and people hated it.

You dont have to do illegal ****. But man speak out more. Be more aggressive and vocal. Stop letting the GOP have unanswered sound bites. Stop with the "Well not all the GOP is that bad." You know what they damn sure are and they have proven it time and time again. Call them out for it. Rather then go

"Well we think the GOP will work with us on this." Tell it like it is
"The GOP is blocking us at every turn and when this does not get passed it is damn sure on them."

Dont go "Well not every one in the GOP is anti vax." Tell it like it is "They post people and encourage vaccine threaories that are dangerous and are killing people. We would not have near the deaths we have in this country if they gave a damn."

Stop with the "I am sure there are members of the GOP who want to find out what really happened on the 6th." Tell the truth. "The head of their party whose ass they kiss at every chance and his cult in congress are blocking this, trying to cover it up and calling the people on the 6th heroes. They are not the law and order party they are the party of terrorists." Stop being so damn nice all the time!

[Tami]

How Every House Member Voted on the Infrastructure Bill

How Every House Member Voted on the Infrastructure Bill 2021.jpg

[CSTowle]

That's a weird adjective. Sanders is bigger and more impactful than Kucinich ever was. Sanders was the runner-up in two consecutive election cycles, whereas Kucinich never got that close. Sanders is also far more famous and well known than Kucinich ever was.

Hypotheticals are weird by nature. To me Obama not winning in 2012 is inconceivable. And if Obama lost his first term, I don't see him getting a second shot. African-American politicians are not known for getting many second chances after all. Obama would be regarded as Jimmy Carter 2.0 if at all. Whereas Obama has in fact become the defining political figure of the last 2 decades and has overshadowed Clinton's legacy without breaking a sweat.

And I don't think butterflying Trump's Presidency is enough to think Romney becoming President would somehow have been a good thing. Not to mention that Romney is not a great politician. He's not as good as John McCain even.

At the same time, I will agree that Obama losing in 2012 will likely relegate Sanders into a more marginal figure. Obama made it possible for out-of-the-box candidates and ideas. Once you have an African-American President bringing in healthcare, and other ideas into the national conversation, a Jewish Socialist isn't so disagreeable or out-there anymore. AOC is quite critical of Obama but it would be hard to deny that Obama made her arrival into politics more likely rather than less. That's the big paradox of Obama, he may not have intended it or he might have backtracked but his success and his presence pushed the Democrat party further to the left. Further than he intended but he did it nonetheless.

First bolded: As I said in the larger comment, "in a normal election cycle". In 2016 the Clintons were effective at clearing the field for her in what was considered "her turn". Warren didn't run, Biden with the death of his son didn't run, nobody worth mentioning in Democrat politics gave it a serious shot. It was meant to be a simple coronation and hopefully an easy victory over a clearly unqualified and unhinged Republican challenger. So much so that when she did eventually get the nomination and ran neither her camp nor Trump's was prepared for the actual outcome.

If there had been even one other alternative to Clinton, whether Warren or Biden or (in the hypothetical I was responding to) Obama it would have been Clinton vs one or all of those people. Instead, there was no viable alternative and so Primary voters who balked at having their "team" being represented by a thoroughly unlikeable politician elevated Sanders as he was the only one of the fringe candidates with something interesting to say and a bit of a personality. No offense to the others, whose names escape me. Again, I like the guy and I'm glad his message has been heard and he's changed the conversation. But I don't for a second think that without the abysmal prospect of a Clinton coronation he has even a fraction of the pull or name recognition outside of my corner of the world (northern New England) that he has now.

Second bolded: Agreed. Though I do believe he's charismatic enough that he would have (and should have) tried again if he'd failed to hold off Romney, who isn't the charismatic figure Reagan was.

Third bolded: Also agreed, with the exception that I'd also agree with those who might believe it would be a better thing than a Trump Presidency. Like I'd say a Biden Presidency isn't necessarily a good thing, but damn am I glad it's not a second Trump one. Under Romney I don't think we'd have open embracing of white supremacy or a mainstream belief that secession, armed insurrection, and the balkanization of the United States of America is a viable alternative to the system of government we've had for nigh-on 250 years. Instead the Republicans would quietly talk about that among friends and away from Facebook and the like.

[Jack Dracula]

As for undercutting public opinion of Dems?

No one needs to do that when this sort of nonsense is coming down the pike...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59168626

The commission and funding for the dossier originated with wealthy, never-Trump Republicans and was supplemented with funds from the Clinton campaign.

The FBI never concluded the dossier was legit or included it as official evidence in any investigation of Trump due to its inability to be verified and the dubious nature of its origin.
They did feel responsible since they had it in their possession to notify Trump of its existence and the sensitive, possibly damaging information it contained.
They did consider it grounds for an investigation because to not do so wouldn't be fulfilling their obligation towards national security.
The investigation started by Comey and finished by Mueller led to evidence of dealings between Russia and the Trump campaign and instances of attempted obstruction by Trump of the investigation itself.

I'm not sure why this is an indictment of Democrats in general or the current administration.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

First bolded: As I said in the larger comment, "in a normal election cycle". In 2016 the Clintons were effective at clearing the field for her in what was considered "her turn". Warren didn't run, Biden with the death of his son didn't run, nobody worth mentioning in Democrat politics gave it a serious shot. It was meant to be a simple coronation and hopefully an easy victory over a clearly unqualified and unhinged Republican challenger. So much so that when she did eventually get the nomination and ran neither her camp nor Trump's was prepared for the actual outcome.

If there had been even one other alternative to Clinton, whether Warren or Biden or (in the hypothetical I was responding to) Obama it would have been Clinton vs one or all of those people. Instead, there was no viable alternative and so Primary voters who balked at having their "team" being represented by a thoroughly unlikeable politician elevated Sanders as he was the only one of the fringe candidates with something interesting to say and a bit of a personality. No offense to the others, whose names escape me. Again, I like the guy and I'm glad his message has been heard and he's changed the conversation. But I don't for a second think that without the abysmal prospect of a Clinton coronation he has even a fraction of the pull or name recognition outside of my corner of the world (northern New England) that he has now.

Second bolded: Agreed. Though I do believe he's charismatic enough that he would have (and should have) tried again if he'd failed to hold off Romney, who isn't the charismatic figure Reagan was.

Third bolded: Also agreed, with the exception that I'd also agree with those who might believe it would be a better thing than a Trump Presidency. Like I'd say a Biden Presidency isn't necessarily a good thing, but damn am I glad it's not a second Trump one. Under Romney I don't think we'd have open embracing of white supremacy or a mainstream belief that secession, armed insurrection, and the balkanization of the United States of America is a viable alternative to the system of government we've had for nigh-on 250 years. Instead the Republicans would quietly talk about that among friends and away from Facebook and the like.

Huh...that makes sense, I get it now.

[AnakinFlair]

Why were some progressives opposed to this?

It wasn't that they were opposed to it. It was that they (wrongly) believed that by effectively holding this bill hostage, they could force Manchin and Sinema to pass the reconciliation package in the Senate. They never accepted the fact that Manchin and Sinema were just fine with passing nothing.

[CaptainEurope]

Pelosi definitely deserves some credit since the vote originally failed and she called for a debate which brought in more votes. I'm sure some headlocks were in play. But I agree with numberthirty in that it's a partial win compared to what was intended to be in the bill, and it's okay to want more from the politicians we pay.

He did not say "partial win".

He said "F-" which is less than a failing grade. Because he is being a partisan troll.

[CaptainEurope]

The infrastructure bill passed because it is corpation friendly and big businesses and millionaires/billionaires are getting contracts and money for licenses. The BBB bill was the one most middle and lower class people would be directly impacted by. That is not a guarantee anymore and will probably get gutted more without leverage. There are also some objectively shitty parts of the infrastructure bill that were only agreed to in principle because the BBB bill was designed to rectify some of that.

This is going to be another ACA where the Democrats bent over for the rich and got their **** done, and now the Dems will probably pass a stripped down BBB bill that is a dissapointment compared to what was in it and the Republicans will attack a massive spending spree and Democrats will be luke warm or apathetic at best because they know how mediocre it became.

But I read on twitter that this bill is "tax and spend socialism"?

Whatever that may be. what do I know, I am German.

[numberthirty]

He did not say "partial win".

He said "F-" which is less than a failing grade. Because he is being a partisan troll.

Not really...

If what he actually wanted was no family leave and Medicare not being able to negotiate drug prices(let's just set everything else aside...)

F minus.

Which would still be the case. Anyone that went into it fully intending on breaking campaign promises on paid family leave and Medicare being able to negotiate drug costs would deserve an F minus, at the very least.

Never mind that you quoted the actual score that I mentioned here...

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post5803708

Never mind this...

There's a lot that didn't get did...

While it's better than nothing?

I ain't throwing a party for a kid that came home with a C minus.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It wasn't that they were opposed to it. It was that they (wrongly) believed that by effectively holding this bill hostage, they could force Manchin and Sinema to pass the reconciliation package in the Senate. They never accepted the fact that Manchin and Sinema were just fine with passing nothing.

They never got an outright no from either because outright opposing the bill wasn't a good look Pre-VA and it wouldn't be Pre-Midterms either.

Insisting the two bills vote together was the only way to hold their feet to the fire and especially since the VA race crashed and burned because of moderate incompetence and waffling.

Passing the bill now was knee-jerk since it happened after VA and now the second bill is effectively killed.

Anyway, the bill's passed now and we'll see where it goes but not tying BBB to it wasn't smart either way.