Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

The bipartisan bill is an afterthought to me; it's not important. It's for show to the Beltway and Manchin. The meat of what should be that bill will be in the reconciliation package - that's a foregone conclusion. The House knows that, the GOP knows that which is why they hope to derail it. And Pelosi has made it clear she won't consider putting through the bipartisan bill until the reconciliation package is agreed upon and guaranteed passage. That's why it's what really matters. It doesn't actually matter which package it gets delivered in: If it goes through, and I think it will, it's still a major infrastructure victory.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6818

  • DRW50

    5991

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3465

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

 

Case in point:

 

 

This is not going to happen. Both are on record for reconciliation and Pelosi/Schumer/Biden have all made their positions very clear. IMO the GOP has moved into a kill box no matter what. If they all pull out of the deal, Biden still has had his Rose Garden moment where he can say to the bipartisan happy talk gang in the Beltway 'we had a deal, I tried', and then move to pass just the reconciliation package. It also is an instructive lesson to Manchin/Sinema, just like putting S1 on the floor was; that incident swayed a lot of Senators on the fence re: filibuster reform who are now speaking publicly. This whole ridiculous session has been instructive. It's not 4-D ches; I think Biden wants and has hoped for both deals. But I think he also knows what will play out if the GOP backs out. He's already done his diligence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Schatz's tweet is an illustration of what weighs me down about all of this - it is being framed as an outrageous betrayal of "moderate" Republicans. Even if Manchin and Sinema go along, the story veers away from being about infrastructure and becomes about how wrong it is that Biden and Democrats don't want to work for the common good, and what happened to bipartisanship when Biden ran on it, and all the other garbage. And this is even assuming Manchin doesn't cave, even though this is the situation he created in the first place. 

 

It's just a needless quagmire brought on by his ego and it means they are having to scrape through and will struggle to sell any of the benefits to the public. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That version of the story isn't going to play to anyone but their base and a handful of Beltway pundits. They have tried many times to push GOP narratives in the last five years, and each time they've proven they don't matter. All that will matter to the larger public is the results. The public didn't care about the Beltway whining about bipartisanship with the Rescue Plan, and they won't care now.

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Around and around and around and around:

 

 

I guess what he said on Thursday was saying the quiet part out loud and now after Manchin, Sinema, and the so-called Republican "moderates" got on the line, we have to go back to these games. All it really accomplished was a bunch of negative headlines yesterday and giving the media another chance to try to portray his administration as bumbling. The whole theater he is being made to perform is just ridiculous at this point.

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.



  • Recent Posts

    • When Barbara's letter was read (partly in Barbara's voice), there was commenting upthread that Barbara's voice is similar to the voice of Naomi's unhoused client June.  It did sound like her.  June is played by Jasmine Burke.  Per closing credits, Barbara was voiced by Sherita Bolden.  Still possible that they are connected. From our discussion on the May thread:  Looks and/or voices similar between June, Haley, and Tracy.   Tracy looks like Debbi Morgan. LOL so June might be connected to Haley, Tracy, or Barbara; and/or Samantha&Tyrell. I love that we don't know!
    • In the 1987 episodes, Mary has wonderful conversations with MJ and Cheryl. This is a realistic family with believable dynamics. Mary's ambivalence towards Vince is played nicely. Denise Alexander is so good here. I don't know what happened that the writers or producers just decided to chuck it all away. I don't FF these scenes. The show had a strong family that could have had years of storyline and they did nothing with them. I really don't get it. 
    • I can't speak for Sonni, but I thought Annie came off as neurotic from very early on. That's just how Cynthia Watros plays her parts, and the writing went along. I don't think Claire was mentally ill - they claimed she had a brain tumor, didn't they? I am never sure just why they made the effort given that she was leaving anyway. 
    • @DeeVee Claire is a perfect example. So many women came to Springfield as competent, smart, and talented professionals. Then they’d attract a so-called “good guy,” get dumped, and spiral into complete chaos. What always strikes me is how clearly it plays like a male fantasy—yet it was written and sold to a female audience.  I'm not a content expert, but I don't think cis gendered women fantasize about losing control of their mental faculties in response to an orgasm. Similar to Holly's story, it seems repulsive, because I don't believe women fantasize about becoming more vulnerable and appealing to men after they've been assaulted.
    • I just watched some parts of an episode of GL where Roger has just been shot by Holly. Rita then admits to Hillary that Roger raped her. Kasdorf is such a fantastic actress. I wish there were more of her work available. 
    • -- Alex Alegria has almost a full sleeve tattoo on one arm and a large tatt on one pec. I see no indication that the show is covering up his ink,
    • Didn't Carrie2 even seduce a minor? Ick. Oh, yeah, and she even tried to seduce Alan, but this was his post-prison era when he was trying to prove to everyone he had changed. It's funny that of all people he didn't go for it. Wait. Josh had an affair with Vanessa? Or she just thought he did? I know people always say "it's just a soap" but the way mental illness is portrayed on soaps (and that goes for pretty much all of them) has always been not great, especially PPD. They practically turned Claire into The Joker. She also was trying to seduce men. (I notice that now Mary Ryan Munisteri is listed as co HW with Ryder in the 1986 episodes, Claire has calmed down a lot. Never thought her GL career was very good but seems like she tried to course correct that a bit).
    • sss Ms. Tunie is a goddess. I feel all the anger, pride, sadness, arrogance, dignity, fear, love, and other emotions in everything she does as Anita.
    • You're right. People like me who stuck with her, did so because of her history. The show just skated her along with no story,  no goal, no aim. Right again! This is who I forgot before. When you describe her, it makes me appreciate her more. Thinking back I loved Mandy.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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