The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.

Agenda of the 117th [Congress]

1246797

Posts

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    And let's be real clear, our infrastructure is fucked to hell and back, and if earmarks help fix it, bring on the pork.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    oldmanken wrote: »
    oldmanken wrote: »
    If I thought Schumer was an effective majority leader, I would think that him taking the 'get bent' position to McConnell's demand about maintaining the filibuster means that he has already taken the pulse of his caucus and knows he has the support to get it eliminated.

    However, I have also watched Schumer for years, so the above is not an accurate assumption to make, unfortunately.

    Not to Lucy/football this whole situation but you can tell Schumer has been getting fed up with McConnell's shit for years now and is finally in a position to do something about it.

    He still needs to get his whole caucus on board with eliminating the filibuster or it'll just be embarrassing.

    I feel Matthew Yglesias has a decent argument on this, which I saw this morning (initially about confirmations, but applicable to legislation).


    If 40 Republicans could block a Biden nominee, there would be intense pressure on the GOP to wield that obstructive power — but since “no” votes would be ineffectual, plenty of Biden’s picks will end up getting more than 10 GOP votes.


    My suspicion is you’d see something similar on legislation.

    Knowledge that a bill *could* pass 51-50 but that moderate members would gladly compromise on substance for the sake of bipartisan cover would encourage more dealmaking and less obstruction.

    I feel he's right on this, and it's an argument that can be expanded to the more moderate members of the caucus that they would still exercise significant power (if not more) with the filibuster gone. Making that argument to Manchin and Sinema would be difficult, but I think ultimately doable. My skepticism of Schumer is what gives me pause.

    Eliminating the filibuster is step 0, since you can only pass 1 reconciliation bill a year with it in place. I agree that you'd probably see some "moderate" GOP members crossing the aisle if their no votes don't matter and they feel like they're safe from a primary.

    After that, earmarks need to make a comeback, because you have obstinate assholes like Manchin who are practically conservatives and are basically the most powerful people in the Senate right now. The only way to get them onboard with the kind of big, liberal legislation we currently need is if they get to fix the roads and make jobs with their votes.

    Honestly I don't mind if Manchin does some work for his state and gets earmarks, like that's their purpose and West Virginia from all headlines could direly need some federal investment. Being able to do that would be a major win for congress, because shit would get passed again.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    And let's be real clear, our infrastructure is fucked to hell and back, and if earmarks help fix it, bring on the pork.

    Interest rates are at 0%. We should really just have the Congressional money cannon on and leave it that way until there's any inflation whatsoever.

    Spend the money on things that will help people or create a lasting impact, of course, but don't be stingy.

  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    And let's be real clear, our infrastructure is fucked to hell and back, and if earmarks help fix it, bring on the pork.

    Probably a more effective way to fund infrastructure than a bi-weekly 'Infrastructure Week'...

  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Either we're all psychic or Democratic leadership is feeling themselves.

    CBS is reporting that Schumer is rejecting McConnell's request for power sharing.


    CBS wrote:
    Schumer says he will turn down McConnnell's request for Democrats to protect the filibuster as part of the 50-50 Senate: "Leader McConnell's proposal is unacceptable, and it won't be accepted"

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Friendly reminder that McConnell ended the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees to put Gorsuch on the Court.

    So if he started fucking off now, he would have a nice head start.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Friendly reminder that McConnell ended the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees to put Gorsuch on the Court.

    So if he started fucking off now, he would have a nice head start.

    I mean technically we started it with nominees for Federal Judgeships because McConnell filibustered all of them, but yeah, they took it to the next level with SCOTUS.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Friendly reminder that McConnell ended the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees to put Gorsuch on the Court.

    So if he started fucking off now, he would have a nice head start.

    I mean technically we started it with nominees for Federal Judgeships because McConnell filibustered all of them, but yeah, they took it to the next level with SCOTUS.

    Even if we started it (because they literally would not let us govern with it in place), his retaliation and general disregard for norms when it suits him means he doesn't get hypocritical input in how we as the majority party get to run the show.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Friendly reminder that McConnell ended the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees to put Gorsuch on the Court.

    So if he started fucking off now, he would have a nice head start.

    I mean technically we started it with nominees for Federal Judgeships because McConnell filibustered all of them, but yeah, they took it to the next level with SCOTUS.

    Even if we started it (because they literally would not let us govern with it in place), his retaliation and general disregard for norms when it suits him means he doesn't get hypocritical input in how we as the majority party get to run the show.

    Oh yes, of course.

    Screw McConnell, I seem to remember plenty of people saying 'elections have consequences' four years ago so they can go and get fucked.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Friendly reminder that McConnell ended the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees to put Gorsuch on the Court.

    So if he started fucking off now, he would have a nice head start.

    I mean technically we started it with nominees for Federal Judgeships because McConnell filibustered all of them, but yeah, they took it to the next level with SCOTUS.

    Even if we started it (because they literally would not let us govern with it in place), his retaliation and general disregard for norms when it suits him means he doesn't get hypocritical input in how we as the majority party get to run the show.

    Oh yes, of course.

    Screw McConnell, I seem to remember plenty of people saying 'elections have consequences' four years ago so they can go and get fucked.

    "Fuck your feelings" was, I believe, the common refrain.

    Or, basically:

    QHSlZKkl.png

  • ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderator mod
    Preacher wrote: »
    Yeah if the GOP can't just obstruct on principal they would have to worry about voting against things incredibly popular like more relief/stimulus. That again is what McConnel wants preserved, a way to control his caucus from having to actually campaign on a record. Like running on "filibustered these bills" is hard, but running on "voted against more funding for a pandemic, voted against increased medicare coverage" is easy as pie.

    more to the point, running on "someone else filibustered these bills" vs "voted against these bills"

    end the filibuster

    full stop

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    I gotta admit I find it kind of amazing that a minority opposition is even allowed to stop the progress of the majority government.

    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • This content has been removed.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I gotta admit I find it kind of amazing that a minority opposition is even allowed to stop the progress of the majority government.

    That's what the filibuster does.

  • edited January 2021
    This content has been removed.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    The Senate is undemocratic in so many different ways that even if you somehow fixed the filibuster so it could be only be used by a minority if their combined population exceeded the population of the majority I would still rather just abolish the institution.

    The entire point of the Senate is to allow the minority to stall legislation. It should either change to be democratic and work for the will of the people or it should be abolished wholesale. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the institution which gave Mitch McConnell all the tools he ever needed to destroy America.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    I forget where we're at now, but in a 50/50 Senate the Democrats represent at least 20 million more people.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • AbacusAbacus Registered User regular
    edited January 2021
    I forget where we're at now, but in a 50/50 Senate the Democrats represent at least 20 million more people.

    The issue is that those 20 million more people are a less cohesive block, since is pretty much "everybody that is not a social conservative". So Dems tend to lose elections thanks to infighting making difficult to actually leverage that difference in votes. Given that, Biden's pragmatism is an advantage, since it allows him to soothe feathers and get everybody moving on the same directions.

    Oh yeah, and Trump winning made people realize that they have to actually move their butt if they want to win elections.

    Abacus on
  • Lavender GoomsLavender Gooms Tiny Bat Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    I forget where we're at now, but in a 50/50 Senate the Democrats represent at least 20 million more people.

    The issue is that those 20 million more people are a less cohesive block, since is pretty much "everybody that is not a social conservative". So Dems tend to lose elections thanks to infighting making difficult to actually leverage that difference in votes. Given that, Biden's pragmatism is an advantage, since it allows him to soothe feathers and get everybody moving on the same directions.

    Oh yeah, and Trump winning made people realize that they have to actually move their butt if they want to win elections.

    It's actually 41 million more people after Georgia.

    Those 41 million people aren't all Democrats, senators represent their entire state. Currently Democratic senators represent more populous states than Republican ones, but it doesn't matter because the Senate is undemocratic horseshit.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Which is good, sort of, if you have the perspective that the Senate exists and is necessary to restrain the worst impulses of the mob.
    In practice... not so much. (See also, the Electoral College.)

  • GyralGyral Registered User regular
    So, in other news, the man who is now President pro tempore of the Senate has also been in five Batman movies.
    Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont and the longest-serving member of the current Senate, is a Batman aficionado who's turned his fandom into philanthropy. He's even used the comics to forward his legislative agenda.

    Now President pro tempore of the Senate, Leahy is third in the presidential line of succession. Though it's unlikely he'll ever have to serve as President, his high-profile position shines a brighter light on his colorful resume -- which includes multiple appearances in the "Batman" films.

    25t9pjnmqicf.jpg
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    What are the odds that our current batch of moderates in the Senate are as secretly reliable for us when it actually matters as the Republicans' are for them, I wonder?

  • zepherinzepherin Russian warship, go fuck yourself Registered User regular
    Kamar wrote: »
    What are the odds that our current batch of moderates in the Senate are as secretly reliable for us when it actually matters as the Republicans' are for them, I wonder?
    Depends. On slam dunk things they’ll be super reliable, on borderline far left items, less so.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Kamar wrote: »
    What are the odds that our current batch of moderates in the Senate are as secretly reliable for us when it actually matters as the Republicans' are for them, I wonder?

    They'll be there on the final vote, its before that when they'll do their damage.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • zepherinzepherin Russian warship, go fuck yourself Registered User regular
    edited January 2021
    Kamar wrote: »
    What are the odds that our current batch of moderates in the Senate are as secretly reliable for us when it actually matters as the Republicans' are for them, I wonder?

    They'll be there on the final vote, its before that when they'll do their damage.
    There’s going to be some back door deals for West Virginia and Georgia. Hopefully it’s infrastructure funding. As someone who’s driven through both many times, their roads and bridges need some work.

    zepherin on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    What are the odds that our current batch of moderates in the Senate are as secretly reliable for us when it actually matters as the Republicans' are for them, I wonder?

    They'll be there on the final vote, its before that when they'll do their damage.
    There’s going to be some back door deals for West Virginia and Georgia. Hopefully it’s infrastructure funding. As someone who’s driven through both many times, their roads and bridges need some work.

    I'm completely fine with pork as a concept, though obviously not all iterations are acceptable, I'm more thinking of the Obama years where Blue Dogs would make legislation just fucking terrible then show up to vote for it.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Lavender GoomsLavender Gooms Tiny Bat Registered User regular
    Which is good, sort of, if you have the perspective that the Senate exists and is necessary to restrain the worst impulses of the mob.
    In practice... not so much. (See also, the Electoral College.)

    Considering that's a bad perspective I'm not really amenable to that argument.

  • RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    What are the odds that our current batch of moderates in the Senate are as secretly reliable for us when it actually matters as the Republicans' are for them, I wonder?

    They'll be there on the final vote, its before that when they'll do their damage.
    There’s going to be some back door deals for West Virginia and Georgia. Hopefully it’s infrastructure funding. As someone who’s driven through both many times, their roads and bridges need some work.

    I'm completely fine with pork as a concept, though obviously not all iterations are acceptable, I'm more thinking of the Obama years where Blue Dogs would make legislation just fucking terrible then show up to vote for it.

    That's ultimately the difference between the Blue Dogs of the era and the Republicans who were willing to horse trade and negotiate for language in the bills during committee.

    The Republicans shit on the bills and made them more amenable and then told them to fuck off time and again.

    The fact that Obama and Harry Reid let that play out more then once says a lot.

    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • RingoRingo He/Him a distinct lack of substanceRegistered User regular
    It was an era where decorum and bipartisanship were seen as the Alpha and Omega of good politics, perhaps supposing that good politics would eventually lead to good governance

    I remain skeptical that anyone over the age of 60 has learned their lesson in the last fiur years, as none of them seemed to learn it in the 40 years before that

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Aistan wrote: »
    Which is good, sort of, if you have the perspective that the Senate exists and is necessary to restrain the worst impulses of the mob.
    In practice... not so much. (See also, the Electoral College.)

    Considering that's a bad perspective I'm not really amenable to that argument.

    Theory: the Responsible Adults will shut down the Idiots and Nazis.
    Reality: the Nazis and Idiots just elect their own Senators.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Kamar wrote: »
    What are the odds that our current batch of moderates in the Senate are as secretly reliable for us when it actually matters as the Republicans' are for them, I wonder?

    They'll be there on the final vote, its before that when they'll do their damage.

    I mean, that's always true unless your leadership is so incompetent they can't count votes though. By the final vote, everything should always already be hashed out.

  • Lavender GoomsLavender Gooms Tiny Bat Registered User regular
    Aistan wrote: »
    Which is good, sort of, if you have the perspective that the Senate exists and is necessary to restrain the worst impulses of the mob.
    In practice... not so much. (See also, the Electoral College.)

    Considering that's a bad perspective I'm not really amenable to that argument.

    Theory: the Responsible Adults will shut down the Idiots and Nazis.
    Reality: the Nazis and Idiots just elect their own Senators.

    Also the fact that "responsible adults" for this country meant rich white men, and has never really fully gotten past that.

  • EinzelEinzel Registered User regular
    As long as we're wishlisting things and pie-in-the-sky thinking, you know what I'd like to see on the Democrat's priority list?

    Adding more reps to the pile. Uncap the 435 and make it something reflective of the fact that we've doubled in population twice since that was put in place.

    It's in line with voting reforms. It takes the wind out of a lot of the sails which are currently powering the rightwing tilt of politics. And it makes sense just this year given the redistricting going on.

    I had some thoughts on this. Since Republicans love their numerology - make it 1776 representatives.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Einzel wrote: »
    As long as we're wishlisting things and pie-in-the-sky thinking, you know what I'd like to see on the Democrat's priority list?

    Adding more reps to the pile. Uncap the 435 and make it something reflective of the fact that we've doubled in population twice since that was put in place.

    It's in line with voting reforms. It takes the wind out of a lot of the sails which are currently powering the rightwing tilt of politics. And it makes sense just this year given the redistricting going on.

    I had some thoughts on this. Since Republicans love their numerology - make it 1776 representatives.

    At this point, you are more likely to get them to agree to 1488.

  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    So...if Ted Cruz and/or Josh Hawley were to be expelled from the Senate, when would that be happening? After a trial after Trump's trial? Because it does seem weird to keep the two likely seditionists there to vote on the trial, though I'm sure their idiot governors would find replacements just as deranged and into sedition. Still, there need to be some consequences or it's just Preston Brooks all over again.

    Same with the House of Representatives - Boebert seems to be angling to get herself expelled, so when does she get what she's asking for?

    (Going to assume the answer to both is "never.")

  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    I believe expulsion from Congress is just a straight supermajority vote. There's no trial process involved.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User, Moderator mod
    Yeah, either house can just put forward a motion saying "the senator's tie is unbecoming of a legislator" and eject them for that alone.

  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    I believe expulsion from Congress is just a straight supermajority vote. There's no trial process involved.

    It's just a law, if they nuke the filibuster (which they'd have to do, since it's not eligible for reconciliation), it'd just be a straight 50+1

    steam_sig.png
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Spoit wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    I believe expulsion from Congress is just a straight supermajority vote. There's no trial process involved.

    It's just a law, if they nuke the filibuster (which they'd have to do, since it's not eligible for reconciliation), it'd just be a straight 50+1

    No?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_from_the_United_States_Congress

    Like, a law expelling any named member would actually be unconstitutional. Bills of Attainder are specifically called out as not allowed.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • archivistkitsunearchivistkitsune Registered User regular
    Best we could probably hope for is censuring the fuckers and finding other ways to strip them of power. Like Chanus suggested, democrats should take a page from VA republicans, create a bunch of lopsided committees, where the only ones that GOP has a majority on, are ones with virtually no power. It would force McConnell to have to pick and choice where he has his people and result in the more incompetent and hated ones being on the garbage committees and that could in turn create more friction in the republican party. Particularly, if you a setup where the most favored of the establishment end up with more committee seats that the least liked ones.

This discussion has been closed.