I've seen people mention fear of civil war - recently in this thread, as a hypothetical outcome of a SCOTUS justice assassination, and less recently in others, and also on liberal twitter and tictoc and stuff. I don't really get it. What sort of civil war do people envision happening?
Northern Ireland circa 1968-1998
10x as many people die in the US via gun violence every year than the entire combined casualties of the Troubles.
Our political mass shootings already eclipse that, because nearly all of them are politically motivated.
We're already there.
I dont think the point is to compare numbers, its pointing to the factionalism and stochastic violence without things so clear as uniforms and state borders.
We're already there. You can pick a Proud Boy out of a crowd pretty easily, can't you? See someone in khakis, red hat, and white shirt, what's the first thing you think of? And finally, the clearest uniform of them all: The blue one American police wear.
And we've got pretty clear borders, or as we call them "red" and "blue" states.
We've got nasty sectarian and political violence right now. We've got GOP legislators calling for murder right now, and have been for over a decade since Palin's target ad.
The idea the right isn't already engaging in this kind of shit is mindblowing.
The random nature of it makes it hard to predict or mitigate, though. We know what kind of person is likely to commit a mass shooting, but most of those people won't. So at best a Proud Boy "uniform" is advertising that they're an asshole and probably a deeply unpleasant person, but not necessarily that they're a latent terrorist.
Why not?
Kind of seems like that's their entire deal: Travel to location, threaten violence via brandishing.
They also give police a "reason" to engage in violence, and occasionally shoot people.
I've seen people mention fear of civil war - recently in this thread, as a hypothetical outcome of a SCOTUS justice assassination, and less recently in others, and also on liberal twitter and tictoc and stuff. I don't really get it. What sort of civil war do people envision happening?
Northern Ireland circa 1968-1998
10x as many people die in the US via gun violence every year than the entire combined casualties of the Troubles.
Our political mass shootings already eclipse that, because nearly all of them are politically motivated.
We're already there.
I dont think the point is to compare numbers, its pointing to the factionalism and stochastic violence without things so clear as uniforms and state borders.
We're already there. You can pick a Proud Boy out of a crowd pretty easily, can't you? See someone in khakis, red hat, and white shirt, what's the first thing you think of? And finally, the clearest uniform of them all: The blue one American police wear.
And we've got pretty clear borders, or as we call them "red" and "blue" states.
We've got nasty sectarian and political violence right now. We've got GOP legislators calling for murder right now, and have been for over a decade since Palin's target ad.
The idea the right isn't already engaging in this kind of shit is mindblowing.
The random nature of it makes it hard to predict or mitigate, though. We know what kind of person is likely to commit a mass shooting, but most of those people won't. So at best a Proud Boy "uniform" is advertising that they're an asshole and probably a deeply unpleasant person, but not necessarily that they're a latent terrorist.
Why not?
Kind of seems like that's their entire deal: Travel to location, threaten violence via brandishing.
They also give police a "reason" to engage in violence, and occasionally shoot people.
One in a crowd, as in the example, isn't doing much intimidating, usually. It's different when they're traveling in packs.
edit: Or when they're armed. Note: I am firmly in the "open carry is an explicit threat of violence" camp.
Calica on
+6
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I've seen people mention fear of civil war - recently in this thread, as a hypothetical outcome of a SCOTUS justice assassination, and less recently in others, and also on liberal twitter and tictoc and stuff. I don't really get it. What sort of civil war do people envision happening?
Northern Ireland circa 1968-1998
10x as many people die in the US via gun violence every year than the entire combined casualties of the Troubles.
Our political mass shootings already eclipse that, because nearly all of them are politically motivated.
We're already there.
I dont think the point is to compare numbers, its pointing to the factionalism and stochastic violence without things so clear as uniforms and state borders.
We're already there. You can pick a Proud Boy out of a crowd pretty easily, can't you? See someone in khakis, red hat, and white shirt, what's the first thing you think of? And finally, the clearest uniform of them all: The blue one American police wear.
And we've got pretty clear borders, or as we call them "red" and "blue" states.
We've got nasty sectarian and political violence right now. We've got GOP legislators calling for murder right now, and have been for over a decade since Palin's target ad.
The idea the right isn't already engaging in this kind of shit is mindblowing.
The random nature of it makes it hard to predict or mitigate, though. We know what kind of person is likely to commit a mass shooting, but most of those people won't. So at best a Proud Boy "uniform" is advertising that they're an asshole and probably a deeply unpleasant person, but not necessarily that they're a latent terrorist.
Why not?
Kind of seems like that's their entire deal: Travel to location, threaten violence via brandishing.
They also give police a "reason" to engage in violence, and occasionally shoot people.
One in a crowd, as in the example, isn't doing much intimidating, usually. It's different when they're traveling in packs.
edit: Or when they're armed. Note: I am firmly in the "open carry is an explicit threat of violence" camp.
This is what I'm talking about.
I think it should be taken as a given that the only time they feel big enough to do this kind of populace terrorizing is when they're firmly behind a fully kitted tacticool AR15.
And it only takes one to say, go into a Subway fully armed while wearing a shirt firmly displaying conservative values. If that's not implied violence in support of political belief I don't know what is.
I've seen people mention fear of civil war - recently in this thread, as a hypothetical outcome of a SCOTUS justice assassination, and less recently in others, and also on liberal twitter and tictoc and stuff. I don't really get it. What sort of civil war do people envision happening?
Northern Ireland circa 1968-1998
10x as many people die in the US via gun violence every year than the entire combined casualties of the Troubles.
Our political mass shootings already eclipse that, because nearly all of them are politically motivated.
We're already there.
I dont think the point is to compare numbers, its pointing to the factionalism and stochastic violence without things so clear as uniforms and state borders.
We're already there. You can pick a Proud Boy out of a crowd pretty easily, can't you? See someone in khakis, red hat, and white shirt, what's the first thing you think of? And finally, the clearest uniform of them all: The blue one American police wear.
And we've got pretty clear borders, or as we call them "red" and "blue" states.
We've got nasty sectarian and political violence right now. We've got GOP legislators calling for murder right now, and have been for over a decade since Palin's target ad.
The idea the right isn't already engaging in this kind of shit is mindblowing.
The random nature of it makes it hard to predict or mitigate, though. We know what kind of person is likely to commit a mass shooting, but most of those people won't. So at best a Proud Boy "uniform" is advertising that they're an asshole and probably a deeply unpleasant person, but not necessarily that they're a latent terrorist.
Fuck the principle of charity when it comes to white supremacists. Don't want people to assume you're a potential terrorist? The door is right over there.
I've seen people mention fear of civil war - recently in this thread, as a hypothetical outcome of a SCOTUS justice assassination, and less recently in others, and also on liberal twitter and tictoc and stuff. I don't really get it. What sort of civil war do people envision happening?
Northern Ireland circa 1968-1998
10x as many people die in the US via gun violence every year than the entire combined casualties of the Troubles.
Our political mass shootings already eclipse that, because nearly all of them are politically motivated.
We're already there.
I dont think the point is to compare numbers, its pointing to the factionalism and stochastic violence without things so clear as uniforms and state borders.
We're already there. You can pick a Proud Boy out of a crowd pretty easily, can't you? See someone in khakis, red hat, and white shirt, what's the first thing you think of? And finally, the clearest uniform of them all: The blue one American police wear.
And we've got pretty clear borders, or as we call them "red" and "blue" states.
We've got nasty sectarian and political violence right now. We've got GOP legislators calling for murder right now, and have been for over a decade since Palin's target ad.
The idea the right isn't already engaging in this kind of shit is mindblowing.
The random nature of it makes it hard to predict or mitigate, though. We know what kind of person is likely to commit a mass shooting, but most of those people won't. So at best a Proud Boy "uniform" is advertising that they're an asshole and probably a deeply unpleasant person, but not necessarily that they're a latent terrorist.
Fuck the principle of charity when it comes to white supremacists. Don't want people to assume you're a potential terrorist? The door is right over there.
That's not at all what I meant, but I can see why it came across that way.
The post I was responding to compared the Proud Boy "uniform" to an enemy soldier's uniform in wartime. So I was thinking about how and why they feel different, and a big part of that is that when you're at war you can assume anyone wearing an enemy uniform will attack you and respond appropriately.
White supremacists tend to do this "I'm not touching you!" bullshit, though; and most of them are too spineless to commit violence unless they're in large groups. So, as much as I wish it were otherwise, it's still socially unacceptable to attack them pre-emptively the way you might an enemy soldier.
tl;dr: not charity, frustration. Because we know who and what they are, but we can't do anything about it until they prove it. Apparently.
edit: also this whole thing is just me thinking out loud; don't read too much into it
I've seen people mention fear of civil war - recently in this thread, as a hypothetical outcome of a SCOTUS justice assassination, and less recently in others, and also on liberal twitter and tictoc and stuff. I don't really get it. What sort of civil war do people envision happening?
Northern Ireland circa 1968-1998
10x as many people die in the US via gun violence every year than the entire combined casualties of the Troubles.
Our political mass shootings already eclipse that, because nearly all of them are politically motivated.
We're already there.
Stochastic versus organized paramilitary, and the extent to which those paramilitaries are literally founded and funded by Republicans versus being allies of convenience and fellow travelers is a distinction between where we are right now and where, say, the DUP and Ulster Resistance were and are. As well as the targets. The Provisional IRA successfully assassinated Mountbatten and had multiple attempts at Thatcher's life. A white supremacist shooting up a supermarket isn't really comparable. Only January 6th is. Which is the concern about how that proceeds into the future, and if it turns into a 'long war' that successfully changes the composition of government through bloodshed.
Which, also, to be closer to home geographically if not chronographically than The Troubles or Years of Lead, the Post-Reconstruction South would also be an example to point to.
I've seen people mention fear of civil war - recently in this thread, as a hypothetical outcome of a SCOTUS justice assassination, and less recently in others, and also on liberal twitter and tictoc and stuff. I don't really get it. What sort of civil war do people envision happening?
Northern Ireland circa 1968-1998
10x as many people die in the US via gun violence every year than the entire combined casualties of the Troubles.
Our political mass shootings already eclipse that, because nearly all of them are politically motivated.
We're already there.
I dont think the point is to compare numbers, its pointing to the factionalism and stochastic violence without things so clear as uniforms and state borders.
We're already there. You can pick a Proud Boy out of a crowd pretty easily, can't you? See someone in khakis, red hat, and white shirt, what's the first thing you think of? And finally, the clearest uniform of them all: The blue one American police wear.
And we've got pretty clear borders, or as we call them "red" and "blue" states.
We've got nasty sectarian and political violence right now. We've got GOP legislators calling for murder right now, and have been for over a decade since Palin's target ad.
The idea the right isn't already engaging in this kind of shit is mindblowing.
The random nature of it makes it hard to predict or mitigate, though. We know what kind of person is likely to commit a mass shooting, but most of those people won't. So at best a Proud Boy "uniform" is advertising that they're an asshole and probably a deeply unpleasant person, but not necessarily that they're a latent terrorist.
Fuck the principle of charity when it comes to white supremacists. Don't want people to assume you're a potential terrorist? The door is right over there.
That's not at all what I meant, but I can see why it came across that way.
The post I was responding to compared the Proud Boy "uniform" to an enemy soldier's uniform in wartime. So I was thinking about how and why they feel different, and a big part of that is that when you're at war you can assume anyone wearing an enemy uniform will attack you and respond appropriately.
White supremacists tend to do this "I'm not touching you!" bullshit, though; and most of them are too spineless to commit violence unless they're in large groups. So, as much as I wish it were otherwise, it's still socially unacceptable to attack them pre-emptively the way you might an enemy soldier.
tl;dr: not charity, frustration. Because we know who and what they are, but we can't do anything about it until they prove it. Apparently.
edit: also this whole thing is just me thinking out loud; don't read too much into it
Ideally, the way you get around that is by explicitly banning far right militia/paramilitary organizations like the Proud Boys. This, if successfully enacted, would force them underground, not necessarily destroy them. But weakened Proud Boys who have to hide their activity/existence would still be better than what's happening now.
But in reality I do not think the US government is remotely likely to crack down on fascist militias.
"I like just throwing my money at the issue, because that's a lot easier then putting in effort to earn something or get good at it."
Ah, meritocracy.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Okay, then lets throw money at any of the hojillion things wrong with the US.
What? No? You just want to lower taxes and all money needs to go to THE WALL? Well, gee.
No no no, it's consistent. He only throws money at pointless, stupid things
Nah, he only throws money at things that he personally cares. This is worse because it shows what a narcistic ass he is. Before someone goes "but Mill, sometimes he cares about non-stupid issues!" Sure, but we know that his solutions are almost always going to be shitty and often in a way that he thinks personally and directly benefit him.
That said, so can put him on the list with Mitch of fuckers we know will fight against regulating loot boxes, gachas and videogame microtransactions. For the record for those out of the loop, Bobby Kotick, the asshole in charge of Activision-Blizzard, who covered up massive worker abuses (much of which was sexual abuse) and threatened to kill his assistant, has been donating shit tons of his personal money to McConnell. Sure a good chunk of that is likely to try and ensure that Kotick can't be held liable for all the shit he condones, but you know some part of that donation is also "Hey, Mitch make sure my sweet gravy train of abuse and predatory business practices involving lootboxes and microtransactions doesn't get dismantled by legislation."
Okay, then lets throw money at any of the hojillion things wrong with the US.
What? No? You just want to lower taxes and all money needs to go to THE WALL? Well, gee.
No no no, it's consistent. He only throws money at pointless, stupid things
And/or things that allow him to feel superior to others.
Which is why this didn't surprise me at all. There is a class of gamer that just wants to buy the fancy stuff and then lord it over everyone else, because having a bigger number next to your player avatar makes you an objectively better person. It is the same mentality that makes rich people - particularly the ones who never earned their wealth - feel superior to the non-rich.
If they were better people, God would've made them rich. If they were better people, they'd be able to buy themselves sweet lewts in LoL.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It's the digital equivalent to those guided safaris that let you shoot a drugged up 'exotic' animal and then make up a story about how harrowing it all was.
Man, not really related to anything currently being discussed, but I was curious and I guess Mitch McConnell is the 2nd longest party leader in Senate history and will be the longest serving party leader in like a year (or at least tied with longest serving). Kinda put into perspective just how long he's been shaping Senate politics and being an utter bastard.
Biden's calling for removing the filibuster to codify abortion rights.
It needs to be removed for everything and I expect Sinema or Manchin to ruin it anyway but at least he's coming around to ending it for legislation now too.
Biden's calling for removing the filibuster to codify abortion rights.
It needs to be removed for everything and I expect Sinema or Manchin to ruin it anyway but at least he's coming around to ending it for legislation now too.
He's been there on voting rights for months. It's irrelevant until January anyway because of those two dillweeds.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+10
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Biden's calling for removing the filibuster to codify abortion rights.
It needs to be removed for everything and I expect Sinema or Manchin to ruin it anyway but at least he's coming around to ending it for legislation now too.
The stupid part of me hopes Biden will scorch earth Sinema and Manchin the minute dems dont need them. Stupid because I know Biden has no fight or will in him to do so but it's hope.
The stupid part of me hopes Biden will scorch earth Sinema and Manchin the minute dems dont need them. Stupid because I know Biden has no fight or will in him to do so but it's hope.
Spite is fun and all, but what's the point? Nuke the filibuster and force actual negotiation.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The stupid part of me hopes Biden will scorch earth Sinema and Manchin the minute dems dont need them. Stupid because I know Biden has no fight or will in him to do so but it's hope.
Spite is fun and all, but what's the point? Nuke the filibuster and force actual negotiation.
Have you been around? Negotiating with either of them is insane. Let's negotiate with the guy who didnt pass BBB because of a child tax credit or wouldnt pass voter rights. Or better yet let's negotiate with someone who completely flipped her positions after being voted in, fucking over everyone that voted her in and straling their voice.
So no, let's not negotiate with them once they are obsolete.
Lilnoobs on
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I don't understand this expectation that Biden won't need Manchin or Sinema. Are you expecting the Senate to be firmly populated with Dems sometime soon, or are you saying that it won't matter because the GOP is probably going to take it after the next election?
I don't understand this expectation that Biden won't need Manchin or Sinema. Are you expecting the Senate to be firmly populated with Dems sometime soon, or are you saying that it won't matter because the GOP is probably going to take it after the next election?
I mean, Manchin and Sinema don't count for a lot of the things we need anyways, so if we do need them then we're basically screwed, for some things.
But the idea is that if we can get to 52 Dems total, then they can do whatever they want and the 50+1 can nuke the filibuster for certain things, at least, and get stuff passed. It's a rough plan, because the two new Senators have to be more left than Manchin/Sinema and we have to keep the House and everybody else has to be on board with the plan. Many/most current Dem Senators have expressed support for some of this, and Biden has as well, but... it's still gonna be hard.
Honestly from what I've heard, the most likely scenario seems to be we lose the House and then, well, nothing gets passed again. Isn't the US government system great?
I don't think it's likely to hold the House and get 51 in the Senate, but even one more Senator would do a lot because then you can afford to negotiate between two or three people and only need one or two respectively which gives signficant more bargaining power. It was a rumor, but supposedly a big issue with BBB is that Sinema and Manchin had opposing viewpoints of what should be in and out of the bill.
I don't think it's likely to hold the House and get 51 in the Senate, but even one more Senator would do a lot because then you can afford to negotiate between two or three people and only need one or two respectively which gives signficant more bargaining power. It was a rumor, but supposedly a big issue with BBB is that Sinema and Manchin had opposing viewpoints of what should be in and out of the bill.
More likely Manchin and Sinema agreed that there was one thing that needed to be in BBB: A big sharp butcher knife hilt-deep in its back. Remember, Manchin never intended to vote to pass it.
+20
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Manchin's opposing viewpoint is that any bill that might try to ween the country off coal should not exist and Sinema is the happily paid rotating villain. It's worth a shot to elect more Democrats to marginalize them but we have no right to be shocked if 2-3 more Senators (old or new) happily rotate themselves into their roles.
The Senate voted 48-46 on Tuesday to approve former U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach to lead the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, making him the first confirmed head of the agency in seven years.
Republicans Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rob Portman of Ohio joined with Senate Democrats to approve Dettelbach's nomination.
I'm guessing "Legislation" was taken out of the thread title 'cause this Congress isn't going to pass any?
You were literally the one complaining about the last piece of enacted legislation that I brought into this thread to discuss, and somehow enhanced federal oversight of oceangoing containerized freight turned into a gun thread.
But no, I did it because I'm mostly posting on mobile anymore from either my desk or the bus, and prefer the title only taking up a single line.
(Though what I was complaining about was that that bill got through while so many other things urgently needed, for the good of the people and even the survival of the Republic, have and will not. Which suits some just fine, I know. )
President Joe Biden’s massive social safety net package known as Build Back Better sputtered out in December — but pieces of it have shown new signs of life this year.
The cheekily re-dubbed “Build Back Manchin” plan has come into greater focus in recent days after weeks of quiet discussions between the moderate bill-blocker Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
Looks like they are talking about more money for IRS enforcement, closing loopholes on pass-through-businesses and lower overall spending than BBB.
Not sure what they could offer chronic backstabber Manchin to let it go through. I guess they could run it as a reconciliation bill for the year?
All things considered I'm glad they are still trying to pass things to run on for November.
Posts
Why not?
Kind of seems like that's their entire deal: Travel to location, threaten violence via brandishing.
They also give police a "reason" to engage in violence, and occasionally shoot people.
One in a crowd, as in the example, isn't doing much intimidating, usually. It's different when they're traveling in packs.
edit: Or when they're armed. Note: I am firmly in the "open carry is an explicit threat of violence" camp.
This is what I'm talking about.
I think it should be taken as a given that the only time they feel big enough to do this kind of populace terrorizing is when they're firmly behind a fully kitted tacticool AR15.
And it only takes one to say, go into a Subway fully armed while wearing a shirt firmly displaying conservative values. If that's not implied violence in support of political belief I don't know what is.
Fuck the principle of charity when it comes to white supremacists. Don't want people to assume you're a potential terrorist? The door is right over there.
That's not at all what I meant, but I can see why it came across that way.
The post I was responding to compared the Proud Boy "uniform" to an enemy soldier's uniform in wartime. So I was thinking about how and why they feel different, and a big part of that is that when you're at war you can assume anyone wearing an enemy uniform will attack you and respond appropriately.
White supremacists tend to do this "I'm not touching you!" bullshit, though; and most of them are too spineless to commit violence unless they're in large groups. So, as much as I wish it were otherwise, it's still socially unacceptable to attack them pre-emptively the way you might an enemy soldier.
tl;dr: not charity, frustration. Because we know who and what they are, but we can't do anything about it until they prove it. Apparently.
edit: also this whole thing is just me thinking out loud; don't read too much into it
Stochastic versus organized paramilitary, and the extent to which those paramilitaries are literally founded and funded by Republicans versus being allies of convenience and fellow travelers is a distinction between where we are right now and where, say, the DUP and Ulster Resistance were and are. As well as the targets. The Provisional IRA successfully assassinated Mountbatten and had multiple attempts at Thatcher's life. A white supremacist shooting up a supermarket isn't really comparable. Only January 6th is. Which is the concern about how that proceeds into the future, and if it turns into a 'long war' that successfully changes the composition of government through bloodshed.
Which, also, to be closer to home geographically if not chronographically than The Troubles or Years of Lead, the Post-Reconstruction South would also be an example to point to.
But in reality I do not think the US government is remotely likely to crack down on fascist militias.
The author is a reporter.
It's not like another reason is needed to show his odiousness, but it can't hurt, either.
Isn't it? It's like he has a sixth sense about finding the worst possible answer.
Ah, meritocracy.
Feels like it'd be natural for the worst possible person to have the worst possible opinion.
What? No? You just want to lower taxes and all money needs to go to THE WALL? Well, gee.
No no no, it's consistent. He only throws money at pointless, stupid things
Nah, he only throws money at things that he personally cares. This is worse because it shows what a narcistic ass he is. Before someone goes "but Mill, sometimes he cares about non-stupid issues!" Sure, but we know that his solutions are almost always going to be shitty and often in a way that he thinks personally and directly benefit him.
That said, so can put him on the list with Mitch of fuckers we know will fight against regulating loot boxes, gachas and videogame microtransactions. For the record for those out of the loop, Bobby Kotick, the asshole in charge of Activision-Blizzard, who covered up massive worker abuses (much of which was sexual abuse) and threatened to kill his assistant, has been donating shit tons of his personal money to McConnell. Sure a good chunk of that is likely to try and ensure that Kotick can't be held liable for all the shit he condones, but you know some part of that donation is also "Hey, Mitch make sure my sweet gravy train of abuse and predatory business practices involving lootboxes and microtransactions doesn't get dismantled by legislation."
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
And/or things that allow him to feel superior to others.
Which is why this didn't surprise me at all. There is a class of gamer that just wants to buy the fancy stuff and then lord it over everyone else, because having a bigger number next to your player avatar makes you an objectively better person. It is the same mentality that makes rich people - particularly the ones who never earned their wealth - feel superior to the non-rich.
If they were better people, God would've made them rich. If they were better people, they'd be able to buy themselves sweet lewts in LoL.
Like paying for internet porn
Biden's calling for removing the filibuster to codify abortion rights.
It needs to be removed for everything and I expect Sinema or Manchin to ruin it anyway but at least he's coming around to ending it for legislation now too.
He's been there on voting rights for months. It's irrelevant until January anyway because of those two dillweeds.
They've already said they're against it.
Spite is fun and all, but what's the point? Nuke the filibuster and force actual negotiation.
Their busy schedule of not doing jack shit might be upset.
I wonder if he caught it from the Baileys.
Have you been around? Negotiating with either of them is insane. Let's negotiate with the guy who didnt pass BBB because of a child tax credit or wouldnt pass voter rights. Or better yet let's negotiate with someone who completely flipped her positions after being voted in, fucking over everyone that voted her in and straling their voice.
So no, let's not negotiate with them once they are obsolete.
I mean, Manchin and Sinema don't count for a lot of the things we need anyways, so if we do need them then we're basically screwed, for some things.
But the idea is that if we can get to 52 Dems total, then they can do whatever they want and the 50+1 can nuke the filibuster for certain things, at least, and get stuff passed. It's a rough plan, because the two new Senators have to be more left than Manchin/Sinema and we have to keep the House and everybody else has to be on board with the plan. Many/most current Dem Senators have expressed support for some of this, and Biden has as well, but... it's still gonna be hard.
Honestly from what I've heard, the most likely scenario seems to be we lose the House and then, well, nothing gets passed again. Isn't the US government system great?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
More likely Manchin and Sinema agreed that there was one thing that needed to be in BBB: A big sharp butcher knife hilt-deep in its back. Remember, Manchin never intended to vote to pass it.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/1111068609/senate-confirms-dettelbach-to-head-firearms-agency-as-gun-violence-grows
You were literally the one complaining about the last piece of enacted legislation that I brought into this thread to discuss, and somehow enhanced federal oversight of oceangoing containerized freight turned into a gun thread.
But no, I did it because I'm mostly posting on mobile anymore from either my desk or the bus, and prefer the title only taking up a single line.
(Though what I was complaining about was that that bill got through while so many other things urgently needed, for the good of the people and even the survival of the Republic, have and will not. Which suits some just fine, I know.
Neat, this is a thread from the future.
117th try though, I'd say hopefully things have gotten better, but 117 would indicate that maybe the thing can't be fixed.
Also I'm gonna guess the thread is currently in 2025.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/democrats-weigh-a-range-of-tax-increases-in-their-build-back-better-plan-213515796.html
Looks like they are talking about more money for IRS enforcement, closing loopholes on pass-through-businesses and lower overall spending than BBB.
Not sure what they could offer chronic backstabber Manchin to let it go through. I guess they could run it as a reconciliation bill for the year?
All things considered I'm glad they are still trying to pass things to run on for November.