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

[4saken1]

How about anything except...

Do right around "Nothing..."/Shrug shoulders/Throw towel in.

To start with.

That they did nothing is an assumption that you have made. Sinema and Manchin are beholden to nobody except their constituents, so there isn't much that anybody in the Senate can do to them. Should we become like Republicans and censure those who don't vote the way that we want? If so, can you possibly see any chance that this would backfire? Various Senators did tried negotiating with them! That's something, right? Why is your first assumption that there was anything that other Dems could have done that would have changed the outcome? Sanders didn't get either one to change their mind, so I guess he's useless too!

[Jack Dracula]

That they did nothing is an assumption that you have made. Sinema and Manchin are beholden to nobody except their constituents, so there isn't much that anybody in the Senate can do to them. Should we become like Republicans and censure those who don't vote the way that we want? If so, can you possibly see any chance that this would backfire? Various Senators did tried negotiating with them! That's something, right? Why is your first assumption that there was anything that other Dems could have done that would have changed the outcome? Sanders didn't get either one to change their mind, so I guess he's useless too!

It isn't really even an assumption. Common sense would tell us that, given all the time and energy and money put into Biden's key initiatives the people involved didn't just "Shrug shoulders/Throw towel in". Implying that's the case is just a bad faith argument.

[Mister Mets]

Yes, Democrats hate Sanders so much they gave him an important position on the cabinet.

And your speculation about how much pressure was brought to bear on Manchin and Sinema has been noted.

Sanders isn't in the Cabinet.

Are you saying that an ally of his was giving a key cabinet post? Or is it that he has been allowed to be ranking member of the Budget Committee since 2015, and Chairman since 2021 (and obviously Democrats would have been happy to have him as chairman before, but Republicans controlled the Senate.)

I'm not so sure that the moderates and centrists aren't just being practical, even if only temporarily. And they know that as long as they wear the Democrat label they will still get the Democratic Party constituent vote when up against a Republican. So what do they have to lose?

I'm not sure what the argument is about practicality.

Are you suggesting moderates and centrists secretly believe that more progressive policies are better, but that it won't help win elections?
Or is it that moderates and centrists secretly believe that progressive policies will be more popular with voters, but that these shouldn't be allowed to happen?

Oz smh. Oz blasted his GOP opponent for an Islamaphobe comment but had no problem being endorsed by an Islamaphobe like trump.

And now Mehmet Oz is the first major party Muslim nominee for Senate.

This is a milestone that people are oddly quiet about.

I wonder if part of it is that the race technically isn't over (the recount is ongoing even if Oz is ahead.) Or is it not in the interests of either party? Democrats don't want to give Republicans credit for this. Republicans don't want to hurt turnout.

This is looking to be a tough election for PA, especially the senate race.

I think Democrats are heavily favored in the gubernatorial election. Shapiro is less objectionable, Mastriano is more of a nutcase and the decision about who is going to be in charge of a state is a different one than who is going to be one of a hundred Senators. Voters recognize there will be more immediate consequences.

A counterpoint will be that Pennsylvania voters picked Trump over Hillary Clinton, although I suspect a generic Democrat would've won easily.

[Tami]

Sanders isn't in the Cabinet.

Are you saying that an ally of his was giving a key cabinet post? Or is it that he has been allowed to be ranking member of the Budget Committee since 2015, and Chairman since 2021 (and obviously Democrats would have been happy to have him as chairman before, but Republicans controlled the Senate.)

I'm not sure what the argument is about practicality.

Are you suggesting moderates and centrists secretly believe that more progressive policies are better, but that it won't help win elections?
Or is it that moderates and centrists secretly believe that progressive policies will be more popular with voters, but that these shouldn't be allowed to happen?

And now Mehmet Oz is the first major party Muslim nominee for Senate.

This is a milestone that people are oddly quiet about.

I wonder if part of it is that the race technically isn't over (the recount is ongoing even if Oz is ahead.) Or is it not in the interests of either party? Democrats don't want to give Republicans credit for this. Republicans don't want to hurt turnout.


I think Democrats are heavily favored in the gubernatorial election. Shapiro is less objectionable, Mastriano is more of a nutcase and the decision about who is going to be in charge of a state is a different one than who is going to be one of a hundred Senators. Voters recognize there will be more immediate consequences.

A counterpoint will be that Pennsylvania voters picked Trump over Hillary Clinton, although I suspect a generic Democrat would've won easily.

Oz lives in NJ. I'm pretty sure that Republicans would make a stink if I decided to run for Senate in, say, Florida where I have family. I'll just use my relatives' home address as my own and declare myself a candidate.

His being Muslim isn't an issue for Democrats, it will be an issue for Republican voters if they are ever made aware of it. Right now, the GOP is downplaying this in hopes word doesn't get out to the voters.

[Mister Mets]

And a Supreme Court case that establishes that protecting the public is not part of the job description.

It's a bit different, as rights in the United States are generally understood as negative rights rather than positive rights.

There are restrictions on what the government can do to you, but you're not guaranteed services.

If the government wanted to change this, they could pass laws or constitutional amendments with positive rights. One problem is that it's difficult to guarantee things when resources are finite. Results cannot be ensured.

N.Y. Republican Drops Re-Election Bid After Bucking His Party on Guns

There are a lot of big changes in New York thanks to the latest and presumably final congressional map.

It's a shitshow with the Democrats as well.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022...ainst-all.html

I know you probably don't cover Secretary of State election candidates WBE, but oh boy, we got a special one here. Meet Rayla Campbell.

Honestly, nominees for minor statewide office should count.

On the hierarchy, they're on par with congressional backbenchers.

Why are the GOP so obsessed with children and sex?

This person is mistaken, but it would be a legitimate concern if true.

Because you want to rush through an inspection for a company that produces food for babies. If some children became ill afterward who'd be the person taking the heat?

Besides, it's not the President's job to make sure an independently owned company is keeping up with its inspections. A better question might be how actually messed up is that company that they had to stop production for an extended period?

There are a few counterarguments.

First, if the regulations are too strict, that is a failure of government.

In addition, we've had difficulty getting replacements because of formula because of unnecessary restrictions.

https://capitolism.thedispatch.com/p...crisis-and?s=r

For example, European baby formula, which is generally considered reliable, could not be sold in the US because it has different nutritional labels.

The FDA rules barring importation of Canadian formula should have been temporarily suspended once ago when it became clear that this could be a problem.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/13...mula-shortage/

Formula is especially troublesome, because it is so essential and time-sensitive.

Oz lives in NJ. I'm pretty sure that Republicans would make a stink if I decided to run for Senate in, say, Florida where I have family. I'll just use my relatives' home address as my own and declare myself a candidate.

His being Muslim isn't an issue for Democrats, it will be an issue for Republican voters if they are ever made aware of it. Right now, the GOP is downplaying this in hopes word doesn't get out to the voters.

This seems to be a bit of a fake controversy in that it does not matter to most people complaining about it. Most Democrats pissed off at Dr. Oz for living in New Jersey and winning a more electable Senate nomination in Pennsylvania wouldn't support him if he was more closely tied to Pennsylvania, nor would they back if a Republican if a Democratic candidate in another state had weak ties at best to a state they figured they have a better chance winning in. Considering Hillary Clinton was my Senator in New York, I don't think Democrats get to complain about carpetbaggers. My dad would note she followed in the proud tradition of Robert Kennedy.

Never mind the seriously "Commie..." idea that government absolutely should have a limited ability to produce obvious things like...

- Baby Formula
- Baby Food
- Insulin
- You Get It

On the off chance that something like this could happen.

I think there's an argument for government producing these kinds of essentials.

There are some other advantages. A problem with insulin was price-gouging, as the top companies could lower prices to drive competitors out of business, and then raise prices later. That doesn't quite work if the government takes care of the bill to provide the service at a reasonable cost.

It isn't really even an assumption. Common sense would tell us that, given all the time and energy and money put into Biden's key initiatives the people involved didn't just "Shrug shoulders/Throw towel in". Implying that's the case is just a bad faith argument.

The main argument would be that they picked a poor strategy given the narrowness of their majority.

[numberthirty]

That they did nothing is an assumption that you have made. Sinema and Manchin are beholden to nobody except their constituents, so there isn't much that anybody in the Senate can do to them. Should we become like Republicans and censure those who don't vote the way that we want? If so, can you possibly see any chance that this would backfire? Various Senators did tried negotiating with them! That's something, right? Why is your first assumption that there was anything that other Dems could have done that would have changed the outcome? Sanders didn't get either one to change their mind, so I guess he's useless too!

Here is the the incredibly obvious thing that makes that assertion difficult to not just laugh at...

In serious detail, lay out just how difficult it has been for Democrats to point out that Republicans are in the pocket of the gun lobby?

Once one has the obvious answer to that question?

The next question is rather simple...

If it is pretty easy to call out a Republican for that sort of thing and the press has had no problem digging some stuff up on this particular pair of Democrats, why do Democrats suddenly seem incapable of calling this pair of Democrats out in the exact same way once exactly where the pair stand is crystal clear?

[babyblob]

This person is mistaken, but it would be a legitimate concern if true.

The thing about that is it is not a legitimate concern. Not only is not not true, it has never been true. Not like the GOP are trying to say. Teachers are trying to turn your kids gay. Not even close to the truth. So no it is not a legitimate concern.

[numberthirty]

...

I think there's an argument for government producing these kinds of essentials.

There are some other advantages. A problem with insulin was price-gouging, as the top companies could lower prices to drive competitors out of business, and then raise prices later. That doesn't quite work if the government takes care of the bill to provide the service at a reasonable cost.

...

I'm not even saying that the government should be producing them all of the time(well, maybe with the exception of insulin...)

That said, there is seemingly not "We are taking on water...." plan for if there is even a serious hiccup in private formula production in the States.

To me?

That is the whole reason that you have government at the Federal level.

To, at the very least, be able to supplement production in such an instance.

(Never mind if something truly catastrophic was to come to pass...)

[WestPhillyPunisher]

I know you probably don't cover Secretary of State election candidates WBE, but oh boy, we got a special one here. Meet Rayla Campbell.

Oh, she’s a real prize. And yet, Qpublicans like her want teachers to be packing heat to battle bad guys who storm schools to main and kill. SMDH.

Oz lives in NJ. I'm pretty sure that Republicans would make a stink if I decided to run for Senate in, say, Florida where I have family. I'll just use my relatives' home address as my own and declare myself a candidate.

His being Muslim isn't an issue for Democrats, it will be an issue for Republican voters if they are ever made aware of it. Right now, the GOP is downplaying this in hopes word doesn't get out to the voters.

I wonder if Lincoln Project might drop a dime on Oz?

[Malvolio]

Maybe it's time for John Oliver to give us an update on this guy:

[babyblob]

School shootings will be a thing of the past in Ohio. The House passed a bill that lowered I will say again lowered the amount of training a teacher needs from 700 hours to a cap of 24. And they made a point to say no more then 24 hours several times unless the school board demands more. Also yearly training is not to exceed 8 hours a year.

One Republican said "This is the most important thing we have done to stop school shootings."

One Democrat member of the house shot back

"It is the most important thing you have done to stop school shooting because it is the only thing you have done and that is sad."

Gov. Mike DeWine said today he is going to sign the Bill into law ASAP.

[Mister Mets]

This ( democrats walking away from identifying as "liberal" ) has been an issue though for decades. As have been the tropes in political ads he's satirizing. He could have done this bit in '94 and most of it would have still worked.

Having said that, Bill is part of the problem he claims to be pointing out. He never misses a chance to claim that Dems are obsessed with "identity politics" or "wokeness" and that these are things liberals should be embarrassed of.

It seems consistent to criticize Democrats' refusal to call themselves liberal, while going after them for dopey policy ideas.

The majority of his video is a criticism of Republicans.

He seems to be a bit of a punching bag here, so I'm curious when you think he's critical of the left in a way that doesn't match the views of voters. When does he go after Democrats for policy suggestions that actually have majority support?

[Scott Taylor]

I'm not sure what the argument is about practicality.

Are you suggesting moderates and centrists secretly believe that more progressive policies are better, but that it won't help win elections?
Or is it that moderates and centrists secretly believe that progressive policies will be more popular with voters, but that these shouldn't be allowed to happen?

I guess it comes back to your original statement - how do those moderates and centrists believe they are making the Democrat party better?

To me, it would be winning people over to your point of view. But instead I feel like these two particular Democrats are compromising.

[Jack Dracula]

Sanders isn't in the Cabinet.

Are you saying that an ally of his was giving a key cabinet post? Or is it that he has been allowed to be ranking member of the Budget Committee since 2015, and Chairman since 2021 (and obviously Democrats would have been happy to have him as chairman before, but Republicans controlled the Senate.)

Yes, thanks for the correction.
My point still stands that Sanders is far from being a pariah within the party.

The main argument would be that they picked a poor strategy given the narrowness of their majority.

The main argument is that the administration didn't "Shrug shoulders/Throw towel in" as was stated.

There are a few counterarguments.

First, if the regulations are too strict, that is a failure of government.

In addition, we've had difficulty getting replacements because of formula because of unnecessary restrictions.

https://capitolism.thedispatch.com/p...crisis-and?s=r

For example, European baby formula, which is generally considered reliable, could not be sold in the US because it has different nutritional labels.

The FDA rules barring importation of Canadian formula should have been temporarily suspended once ago when it became clear that this could be a problem.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/13...mula-shortage/

Formula is especially troublesome, because it is so essential and time-sensitive.

The plant in question was closed down when several babies became ill and two died. That being the result of poor manufacturing standards points out the necessity for strict regulations.
The President invoked emergency powers to address the crisis, part of that was relaxing the trade restrictions allowing Nestle to import formula from some European countries. Only one or two were temporarily prohibited due to the difference in nutritional labels. Again, two babies had already died due to negligent manufacturing. Vetting the quality of the emergency supply is just common sense.

[AnakinFlair]

School shootings will be a thing of the past in Ohio. The House passed a bill that lowered I will say again lowered the amount of training a teacher needs from 700 hours to a cap of 24. And they made a point to say no more then 24 hours several times unless the school board demands more. Also yearly training is not to exceed 8 hours a year.

One Republican said "This is the most important thing we have done to stop school shootings."

One Democrat member of the house shot back

"It is the most important thing you have done to stop school shooting because it is the only thing you have done and that is sad."

Gov. Mike DeWine said today he is going to sign the Bill into law ASAP.

I'm confused. Are they saying a teacher only needs 24 hours of training in being a teacher? Or only 24 hours of gun training to carry a gun?