Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Recommended Posts

 

 

Another shining moment for our self-appointed moral conscience, who can roll in his wads of cash as Democrats lose the House and Senate. If they do hold on, it sure as hell isn't because of him, or his partner in purity from Arizona. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Replies 36.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • DRW50

    4828

  • Vee

    4772

  • DramatistDreamer

    4564

  • Khan

    3055

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

I included the second tweet because I pretty much agree with it. And this on top of cutting unemployment benefits. All so we can get a round of backpatting over fiscal conservatism. This is really a lousy idea that is going to drown out much of the popular support this bill could have had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's Manchin for you. But while I don't agree with cutting the income level and that will affect some, I don't think that many of the general public will notice any of this skullduggery much. What trends on Twitter for a few hours is not what drowns out public discourse. And they're not cutting UI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing to watch people on the left talk about who won't be showing up to the polls in 2022 or 2024 as if everyone lives on Twitter and nothing could possibly happen in the interim that would affect how and why people vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, marceline said:

It's amazing to watch people on the left talk about who won't be showing up to the polls in 2022 or 2024 as if everyone lives on Twitter and nothing could possibly happen in the interim that would affect how and why people vote.

 

Unfortunately due to the wave of voter suppression laws being passed (and, again thanks to Manchin and Sinema, probably not going to be addressed by Congress), even these votes on the margins may be deciding.

50 minutes ago, Vee said:

That's Manchin for you. But while I don't agree with cutting the income level and that will affect some, I don't think that many of the general public will notice any of this skullduggery much. What trends on Twitter for a few hours is not what drowns out public discourse. And they're not cutting UI.

 

I hope people will not punish the Democrats who did try, but I feel like all of these posturing games are leaving a lot of Democrats hanging out to dry, especially those like Raphael Warnock who campaigned on 2K.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, marceline said:

It's amazing to watch people on the left talk about who won't be showing up to the polls in 2022 or 2024 as if everyone lives on Twitter and nothing could possibly happen in the interim that would affect how and why people vote.

 

Dave Weigel lives in a world where he must choose between common sense and politely appeasing the deranged rantings of Brianha Joy Gray to prove he is left enough and often opts for Door #2, and thinks all Democratic voters do the same. But this is also coming from the same brain trust of folks who believed that if Pelosi and Schumer had just held a vote at 3 AM EST the day of the Capitol siege, Congressional GOP would've voted to impeach Trump.

 

It's not a small concession on lowering the limit, and I don't like it. But I do understand it, and I also don't trust in or take seriously either a) Twitter warriors of the left who view everything through a catastrophizing lens for Dems, either because of endless PTSD or because they simply want the party destroyed for not kowtowing to them, or b) Beltway pundits who live to handicap Dems at all costs and so always spin everything on behalf of the moderate or conservative voices in the caucus if not in the GOP itself. There is a more nuanced take than any of that, and I don't think any of this particular round of minutiae will have much bearing on '22 which will be tough no matter what.

Edited by Vee
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Vee said:

It's not a small concession on lowering the limit, and I don't like it. But I do understand it, and I also don't trust in or take seriously either a) Twitter warriors of the left who view everything through a catastrophizing lens for Dems, either because of endless PTSD or because they simply want the party destroyed for not kowtowing to them, or b) Beltway pundits who live to handicap Dems at all costs and so always spin everything on behalf of the moderate or conservative voices in the caucus if not in the GOP itself. There is a more nuanced take than any of that, and I don't think any of this particular round of minutiae will have much bearing on '22 which will be tough no matter what.

The limit is going from $80,000 to $75,000. I thought it was 75 to begin with, so what is the POINT of dropping it. All it does is give the GOP a talking point. And it's not worth it.  

 

The idea of dropping the $400 unemployment supplement to $300 is also stupid. Again so little money sounds pointless.

 

If they got a commitment from Manchin on the filibuster in return for this so that they can pass HR1 then I'd get it.

 

 

EDIT: So sorry I got this mixed up. It zeros out at 80k. This is a even dumber move.

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to post
Share on other sites

This I am happy to see.  Klobuchar is a workhorse in the senate and this means something that she's come out for abolishing the filibuster.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JaneAusten said:

The limit is going from $80,000 to $75,000. I thought it was 75 to begin with, so what is the POINT of dropping it. All it does is give the GOP a talking point. And it's not worth it.  

 

The idea of dropping the $400 unemployment supplement to $300 is also stupid. Again so little money sounds pointless.

 

If they got a commitment from Manchin on the filibuster in return for this so that they can pass HR1 then I'd get it.

 

EDIT: So sorry I got this mixed up. It zeros out at 80k. This is a even dumber move.

 

I have a feeling that he told them he wouldn't vote for it at all unless they did this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my doubts, but I can't blame them for not wanting to risk it on the first major bill of this administration. They do need to get him up against a wall soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JaneAusten said:

The idea of dropping the $400 unemployment supplement to $300 is also stupid.

 

It's not dropping, last I checked. Manchin gave up on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

He's absolutely right, and this is something that has been pointed out and autopsied for years since Obamacare and those midterms, when gunshy Dems ran away from it. Though of course you'll have people tearing down the bill for not being perfect. Which is why more will be necessary.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Vee
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Vee said:

He's absolutely right, and this is something that has been pointed out and autopsied for years since Obamacare and those midterms, when gunshy Dems ran away from it. Though of course you'll have people tearing down the bill for not being perfect. Which is why more will be necessary.

 

 

 

 

I'm with you on this in fact they need to have a messaging campaign on this and NOT let the fascists drive the narrative. FDR used to have signage and messaging all over the CCC and WPA projects that were being worked on all over the country.  They should brand the American Recover Act and advertise. Sounds tacky but it is needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Soap Opera Network Community? Tell a friend!
  • Posts

    • Please no Connor, and mostly please don't ever let him sing again   https://youtu.be/nZKrkpRa4EA?t=70    
    • By Jackie Zeman's Insta I think they filmed the episode today
    • I was reading the weekly synopses of the introduction to the character of Stuart Chandler and it got me thinking.  I don't want to use the term "offensive" because I did not feel that way.  However, in retrospect, it was not just politically incorrect, but also poorly written and acted.    First, it seems like a choice that Stuart's "mental problems" were always obtuse.  Was he psychotic?  Well, there were no hallucinations or delusions.  Did he have Autism?  Well, he maintained romantic relationships with two women, which would suggest that he did not have delays in socialization, and he did not display any restrictive interests or repetitive movements.  Was he intellectually deficient?  Well he seemed capable of taking care of his adaptive skills such as cooking and cleaning himself.  The lack of diagnosis seemed to be in the service of not having to advocate for any specific disease, but it left many open questions.   Second, his portrayal as being cute and immature was disrespectful of people with brain injuries.  Most men with brain injuries do not indicate their level of impairment by wearing crewneck sweaters.  And men with structural damage to their cortex don't speak like little boys or want to play with toys.  Writing and acting the character of Stuart as lovable because he seemed younger than his age was problematic.  Could he consent to a sexual relationship with Marion given his level of functioning?  Who knew, because it was so ill defined.   As I recall AMC got accolades for the portrayal of Stuart and fans enjoyed his romances with Cindy and Marion.  But, given my own experiences knowing people with head injuries, Autism, and chronic mental illness, it was just grossly out of touch.  AMC tried again with the characters of Lily Montgomery and Jonathan Lavery but the acting in both cases was atrocious.  Jonathan's miraculous recovery from a brain injury was worse than when soaps have people spontaneously walk after paralysis, or see after temporary blindness, because Jonathan inexplicably had to act as if he was still delayed in order to maintain his relationship, and then was found out when Jackson heard him speak "normally."  On what planet would that be considered sensitive or tasteful story telling?   I guess we should applaud the efforts to show intellectual diversity.  However, when the only stories for people with disabilities are either about being abused or trying to find love, writers have missed the opportunity to mine the real dramas in the lives of people with neurological differences and their families.  
    • If foolish frank wants to honor Sean Donely, there some faces he needs to bring back----   Robin  Frisco Felicia A message of some sort from Luke An audio message from Tiffany   if possible some mention of Connor, Sean's son   current  cast: Anna Robert Mac Laura Monica Bobbi Lucas Lucy Kevin Maxie
    • And did Lisa refer to Duncan as "...that ugly Scotch person"?
  • Recent Status Updates

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy