Schumer’s negotiating strategy here seems to be ignoring the Progressives in the House, who like the rest of us were defeated by Manchin last year and are happy to pass whatever they are sent
It was Schumer who was negotiating with Manchin on BBB remember- Biden was negotiating across the caucus
Also re: Sinema, Ruben Gallego has been running as her primary opponent for about a year already, but it’s just not official because that’s a 2024 election
Gallego is fairy progressive, but also well-respected among House dems so I think the whole “primary her ass/the DNC better not back her” thing has already been solved for for some time now
His Congressional Twitter is pretty diplomatic, but he sends out about 150 tweets a day from his personal account and holds nothing back
I guess I can be blamed for 2024 senate stuff. Really my point had been, that we're stuck with both those assholes and Sinema has probably been the worst of the two, as evidenced by the last minute shit she pulled. Manchin is fucking awful, but you at leas know he is going to be consistent and when you have him on board he won't fuck it up last minute during the vote.
Ideally, we get enough democrats in the Senate this fall, while keeping the house, that neither one of those jackasses matters. Barring that, just one more democratic senator probably makes shit less fucked up because you can cut out Sinema, who we can realistically replace in 2024 as of right now. She's the one that likes to pull last minute crazy bullshit for the fucking oligarchs when everyone thought she was committed. Manchin at least will stick to the agreement once he agrees to go in for a vote.
Anyways, I really hope Schumer queues up all the good shit that the GOP has been blocking for years, but not voting on because they know the optics look bad. Figure if you aren't getting much done in the Senate, you can start giving people actually voting records to work with. Maybe the shithead republicans back down and you get some solid stuff through, if not you get to campaign on them being awful in an easy to prove way. Mitch's strategy when he was majority leader, was also to make sure the GOP got their awful policy shit, but in a way where they didn't have to defend voting for it.
I still want to know why he apparently abandoned that whole "We get multiple reconciliations" thing from when this term just started.
Okay, cool, we got this stuff. Now let's do a super mini-reconciliation for the insulin stuff only. Make Lindsay Graham really pissy about not getting to be on vacation. I do know we're butting up against campaigning time, but that still hits Republicans more than Dems.
My guess is that Manchin said "no we don't"
Yeah, in the end there's still a limited number of them and so they end up an omnibus bills no matter what. And also given how cranky idiot senators can get about needing to actually do stuff I imagine there was probably not support for making one or more of them a single issue thing.
I guess I can be blamed for 2024 senate stuff. Really my point had been, that we're stuck with both those assholes and Sinema has probably been the worst of the two, as evidenced by the last minute shit she pulled. Manchin is fucking awful, but you at leas know he is going to be consistent and when you have him on board he won't fuck it up last minute during the vote.
Ideally, we get enough democrats in the Senate this fall, while keeping the house, that neither one of those jackasses matters. Barring that, just one more democratic senator probably makes shit less fucked up because you can cut out Sinema, who we can realistically replace in 2024 as of right now. She's the one that likes to pull last minute crazy bullshit for the fucking oligarchs when everyone thought she was committed. Manchin at least will stick to the agreement once he agrees to go in for a vote.
Anyways, I really hope Schumer queues up all the good shit that the GOP has been blocking for years, but not voting on because they know the optics look bad. Figure if you aren't getting much done in the Senate, you can start giving people actually voting records to work with. Maybe the shithead republicans back down and you get some solid stuff through, if not you get to campaign on them being awful in an easy to prove way. Mitch's strategy when he was majority leader, was also to make sure the GOP got their awful policy shit, but in a way where they didn't have to defend voting for it.
I still want to know why he apparently abandoned that whole "We get multiple reconciliations" thing from when this term just started.
Okay, cool, we got this stuff. Now let's do a super mini-reconciliation for the insulin stuff only. Make Lindsay Graham really pissy about not getting to be on vacation. I do know we're butting up against campaigning time, but that still hits Republicans more than Dems.
Insulin would still be struck by the Parliamentarian because regulating private health insurance plans is regulatory, not budgetary. They also haven't abandoned multiple Reconciliation Bills. They still need to do the full budget appropriations for 2023 before fiscal year's end.
I guess I can be blamed for 2024 senate stuff. Really my point had been, that we're stuck with both those assholes and Sinema has probably been the worst of the two, as evidenced by the last minute shit she pulled. Manchin is fucking awful, but you at leas know he is going to be consistent and when you have him on board he won't fuck it up last minute during the vote.
Ideally, we get enough democrats in the Senate this fall, while keeping the house, that neither one of those jackasses matters. Barring that, just one more democratic senator probably makes shit less fucked up because you can cut out Sinema, who we can realistically replace in 2024 as of right now. She's the one that likes to pull last minute crazy bullshit for the fucking oligarchs when everyone thought she was committed. Manchin at least will stick to the agreement once he agrees to go in for a vote.
Anyways, I really hope Schumer queues up all the good shit that the GOP has been blocking for years, but not voting on because they know the optics look bad. Figure if you aren't getting much done in the Senate, you can start giving people actually voting records to work with. Maybe the shithead republicans back down and you get some solid stuff through, if not you get to campaign on them being awful in an easy to prove way. Mitch's strategy when he was majority leader, was also to make sure the GOP got their awful policy shit, but in a way where they didn't have to defend voting for it.
I still want to know why he apparently abandoned that whole "We get multiple reconciliations" thing from when this term just started.
Okay, cool, we got this stuff. Now let's do a super mini-reconciliation for the insulin stuff only. Make Lindsay Graham really pissy about not getting to be on vacation. I do know we're butting up against campaigning time, but that still hits Republicans more than Dems.
Insulin would still be struck by the Parliamentarian because regulating private health insurance plans is regulatory, not budgetary. They also haven't abandoned multiple Reconciliation Bills. They still need to do the full budget appropriations for 2023 before fiscal year's end.
I guess I can be blamed for 2024 senate stuff. Really my point had been, that we're stuck with both those assholes and Sinema has probably been the worst of the two, as evidenced by the last minute shit she pulled. Manchin is fucking awful, but you at leas know he is going to be consistent and when you have him on board he won't fuck it up last minute during the vote.
Ideally, we get enough democrats in the Senate this fall, while keeping the house, that neither one of those jackasses matters. Barring that, just one more democratic senator probably makes shit less fucked up because you can cut out Sinema, who we can realistically replace in 2024 as of right now. She's the one that likes to pull last minute crazy bullshit for the fucking oligarchs when everyone thought she was committed. Manchin at least will stick to the agreement once he agrees to go in for a vote.
Anyways, I really hope Schumer queues up all the good shit that the GOP has been blocking for years, but not voting on because they know the optics look bad. Figure if you aren't getting much done in the Senate, you can start giving people actually voting records to work with. Maybe the shithead republicans back down and you get some solid stuff through, if not you get to campaign on them being awful in an easy to prove way. Mitch's strategy when he was majority leader, was also to make sure the GOP got their awful policy shit, but in a way where they didn't have to defend voting for it.
I still want to know why he apparently abandoned that whole "We get multiple reconciliations" thing from when this term just started.
Okay, cool, we got this stuff. Now let's do a super mini-reconciliation for the insulin stuff only. Make Lindsay Graham really pissy about not getting to be on vacation. I do know we're butting up against campaigning time, but that still hits Republicans more than Dems.
Insulin would still be struck by the Parliamentarian because regulating private health insurance plans is regulatory, not budgetary. They also haven't abandoned multiple Reconciliation Bills. They still need to do the full budget appropriations for 2023 before fiscal year's end.
I.e two months
Yep. Which, I wonder if the CR will cover up to the election, or through the election.
Schumer's honestly had a very good session, especially given the majority he has rests on a guy from a state Trump won by what, 40? And a not very bright person who is just there to represent private equity and troll for content.
Yeah, Schumer overall seems to have played his hand pretty well. From what we've seen today maybe even better then expected. In the end he got a bunch of stuff through. And maybe even more to come.
This is also exactly the reason you keep people like Manchin and Sinema in the caucus, no matter how stupid and irritating they are.
Yeah, if we'd gone with "fuck Manchin, run him out of the party, who even cares anymore" none of this would've happened. It's a modest win, but in context it's not nothing. And between these last minute wins and the Dobbs stuff, it may even help us keep the Senate.
I am slightly less despondent than I was previously about the midterms!
Can we please not refer to Dobbs as a political win for the democrat party? Millions of people now suffer from the loss of bodily autonomy because of it.
+6
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
edited August 2022
I think it's pretty clear in that statement Dobbs came after and separately from the political wins. It would obviously have been better if it hadn't happened, but that doesn't change the fact that it might make people more likely to vote in the midterms. That doesn't make it a good thing, but it does factor into the results potentially. So it's relevant.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
That's not clear at all. The statement absolutely is "this and Dobbs will help us keep the Senate"
Dobbs will (probably) help Dems maybe keep the Senate but that does not mean it's a win and it seems in real bad faith to think ElJeffe was saying it was.
That's not clear at all. The statement absolutely is "this and Dobbs will help us keep the Senate"
Dobbs will (probably) help Dems maybe keep the Senate but that does not mean it's a win and it seems in real bad faith to think ElJeffe was saying it was.
My request (that we stop thinking of major policy implications in terms of electoral outcomes) is not a bad faith reading.
That's not clear at all. The statement absolutely is "this and Dobbs will help us keep the Senate"
Dobbs will (probably) help Dems maybe keep the Senate but that does not mean it's a win and it seems in real bad faith to think ElJeffe was saying it was.
My request (that we stop thinking of major policy implications in terms of electoral outcomes) is not a bad faith reading.
It absolutely is a bad faith reading to jump to the conclusion that ElJeffe was describing Dobbs as a "political win for the democrat party", which is literally what you did, rather then just make the more obvious assumption that Dobbs is not a win but is something that will probably help Dems keep the Senate.
That's not clear at all. The statement absolutely is "this and Dobbs will help us keep the Senate"
Dobbs will (probably) help Dems maybe keep the Senate but that does not mean it's a win and it seems in real bad faith to think ElJeffe was saying it was.
My request (that we stop thinking of major policy implications in terms of electoral outcomes) is not a bad faith reading.
It absolutely is a bad faith reading to jump to the conclusion that ElJeffe was describing Dobbs as a "political win for the democrat party", which is literally what you did, rather then just make the more obvious assumption that Dobbs is not a win but is something that will probably help Dems keep the Senate.
I am reading what was written at face value. Is your contention that I used the word "win" instead of more specifically "stop considering major policies in terms of positive electoral outcomes"? I figured that the two are colloquially equivalent enough that the shorter version would be better.
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
That's not clear at all. The statement absolutely is "this and Dobbs will help us keep the Senate"
Dobbs will (probably) help Dems maybe keep the Senate but that does not mean it's a win and it seems in real bad faith to think ElJeffe was saying it was.
My request (that we stop thinking of major policy implications in terms of electoral outcomes) is not a bad faith reading.
This is the US congress thread. We're going to talk about things that might impact the congress and how. And acknowledging and discussing the ways in which deeply political events will affect national politics does not inherently diminish the impact they have on real peoples lives.
That's not clear at all. The statement absolutely is "this and Dobbs will help us keep the Senate"
Dobbs will (probably) help Dems maybe keep the Senate but that does not mean it's a win and it seems in real bad faith to think ElJeffe was saying it was.
My request (that we stop thinking of major policy implications in terms of electoral outcomes) is not a bad faith reading.
It absolutely is a bad faith reading to jump to the conclusion that ElJeffe was describing Dobbs as a "political win for the democrat party", which is literally what you did, rather then just make the more obvious assumption that Dobbs is not a win but is something that will probably help Dems keep the Senate.
I am reading what was written at face value. Is your contention that I used the word "win" instead of more specifically "stop considering major policies in terms of positive electoral outcomes"? I figured that the two are colloquially equivalent enough that the shorter version would be better.
You were wrong.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
That's not clear at all. The statement absolutely is "this and Dobbs will help us keep the Senate"
Dobbs will (probably) help Dems maybe keep the Senate but that does not mean it's a win and it seems in real bad faith to think ElJeffe was saying it was.
My request (that we stop thinking of major policy implications in terms of electoral outcomes) is not a bad faith reading.
This is the US congress thread. We're going to talk about things that might impact the congress and how. And acknowledging and discussing the ways in which deeply political events will affect national politics does not inherently diminish the impact they have on real peoples lives.
That's not clear at all. The statement absolutely is "this and Dobbs will help us keep the Senate"
Dobbs will (probably) help Dems maybe keep the Senate but that does not mean it's a win and it seems in real bad faith to think ElJeffe was saying it was.
My request (that we stop thinking of major policy implications in terms of electoral outcomes) is not a bad faith reading.
It absolutely is a bad faith reading to jump to the conclusion that ElJeffe was describing Dobbs as a "political win for the democrat party", which is literally what you did, rather then just make the more obvious assumption that Dobbs is not a win but is something that will probably help Dems keep the Senate.
I am reading what was written at face value. Is your contention that I used the word "win" instead of more specifically "stop considering major policies in terms of positive electoral outcomes"? I figured that the two are colloquially equivalent enough that the shorter version would be better.
You were wrong.
If you say so.
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I guess I can be blamed for 2024 senate stuff. Really my point had been, that we're stuck with both those assholes and Sinema has probably been the worst of the two, as evidenced by the last minute shit she pulled. Manchin is fucking awful, but you at leas know he is going to be consistent and when you have him on board he won't fuck it up last minute during the vote.
Ideally, we get enough democrats in the Senate this fall, while keeping the house, that neither one of those jackasses matters. Barring that, just one more democratic senator probably makes shit less fucked up because you can cut out Sinema, who we can realistically replace in 2024 as of right now. She's the one that likes to pull last minute crazy bullshit for the fucking oligarchs when everyone thought she was committed. Manchin at least will stick to the agreement once he agrees to go in for a vote.
Anyways, I really hope Schumer queues up all the good shit that the GOP has been blocking for years, but not voting on because they know the optics look bad. Figure if you aren't getting much done in the Senate, you can start giving people actually voting records to work with. Maybe the shithead republicans back down and you get some solid stuff through, if not you get to campaign on them being awful in an easy to prove way. Mitch's strategy when he was majority leader, was also to make sure the GOP got their awful policy shit, but in a way where they didn't have to defend voting for it.
I still want to know why he apparently abandoned that whole "We get multiple reconciliations" thing from when this term just started.
Okay, cool, we got this stuff. Now let's do a super mini-reconciliation for the insulin stuff only. Make Lindsay Graham really pissy about not getting to be on vacation. I do know we're butting up against campaigning time, but that still hits Republicans more than Dems.
Insulin would still be struck by the Parliamentarian because regulating private health insurance plans is regulatory, not budgetary. They also haven't abandoned multiple Reconciliation Bills. They still need to do the full budget appropriations for 2023 before fiscal year's end.
The Parliamentarian is a gimmick role and can be replaced with a more cooperative one at any time. Republicans did it last time they ran Congress and wanted to get around the filibuster.
You can argue almost everything Congress does is budgetary.
It is not even remotely possible to read what ElJeffe wrote and think that it he is referring to Dobbs as a political win for the Democratic Party in anything approaching a neutral faith reading.
“It’s a modest win” can only refer to the recent bills that were passed and then “between those wins and Dobbs” clearly separates the wins, which were just being talked about being the legislation that was passed, from Dobbs, which is then not described as a win.
For freaking real how could you possibly read that in the way you claim to have read it?
I guess I can be blamed for 2024 senate stuff. Really my point had been, that we're stuck with both those assholes and Sinema has probably been the worst of the two, as evidenced by the last minute shit she pulled. Manchin is fucking awful, but you at leas know he is going to be consistent and when you have him on board he won't fuck it up last minute during the vote.
Ideally, we get enough democrats in the Senate this fall, while keeping the house, that neither one of those jackasses matters. Barring that, just one more democratic senator probably makes shit less fucked up because you can cut out Sinema, who we can realistically replace in 2024 as of right now. She's the one that likes to pull last minute crazy bullshit for the fucking oligarchs when everyone thought she was committed. Manchin at least will stick to the agreement once he agrees to go in for a vote.
Anyways, I really hope Schumer queues up all the good shit that the GOP has been blocking for years, but not voting on because they know the optics look bad. Figure if you aren't getting much done in the Senate, you can start giving people actually voting records to work with. Maybe the shithead republicans back down and you get some solid stuff through, if not you get to campaign on them being awful in an easy to prove way. Mitch's strategy when he was majority leader, was also to make sure the GOP got their awful policy shit, but in a way where they didn't have to defend voting for it.
I still want to know why he apparently abandoned that whole "We get multiple reconciliations" thing from when this term just started.
Okay, cool, we got this stuff. Now let's do a super mini-reconciliation for the insulin stuff only. Make Lindsay Graham really pissy about not getting to be on vacation. I do know we're butting up against campaigning time, but that still hits Republicans more than Dems.
Insulin would still be struck by the Parliamentarian because regulating private health insurance plans is regulatory, not budgetary. They also haven't abandoned multiple Reconciliation Bills. They still need to do the full budget appropriations for 2023 before fiscal year's end.
The Parliamentarian is a gimmick role and can be replaced with a more cooperative one at any time. Republicans did it last time they ran Congress and wanted to get around the filibuster.
You can argue almost everything Congress does is budgetary.
No, Elizabeth MacDonough has been Parliamentarian since 2012.
It is not even remotely possible to read what ElJeffe wrote and think that it he is referring to Dobbs as a political win for the Democratic Party in anything approaching a neutral faith reading.
“It’s a modest win” can only refer to the recent bills that were passed and then “between those wins and Dobbs” clearly separates the wins, which were just being talked about being the legislation that was passed, from Dobbs, which is then not described as a win.
For freaking real how could you possibly read that in the way you claim to have read it?
I guess I read it that way with my eyes.
Like if y'all wanna jump down my throat for it then sure go right ahead.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I guess I can be blamed for 2024 senate stuff. Really my point had been, that we're stuck with both those assholes and Sinema has probably been the worst of the two, as evidenced by the last minute shit she pulled. Manchin is fucking awful, but you at leas know he is going to be consistent and when you have him on board he won't fuck it up last minute during the vote.
Ideally, we get enough democrats in the Senate this fall, while keeping the house, that neither one of those jackasses matters. Barring that, just one more democratic senator probably makes shit less fucked up because you can cut out Sinema, who we can realistically replace in 2024 as of right now. She's the one that likes to pull last minute crazy bullshit for the fucking oligarchs when everyone thought she was committed. Manchin at least will stick to the agreement once he agrees to go in for a vote.
Anyways, I really hope Schumer queues up all the good shit that the GOP has been blocking for years, but not voting on because they know the optics look bad. Figure if you aren't getting much done in the Senate, you can start giving people actually voting records to work with. Maybe the shithead republicans back down and you get some solid stuff through, if not you get to campaign on them being awful in an easy to prove way. Mitch's strategy when he was majority leader, was also to make sure the GOP got their awful policy shit, but in a way where they didn't have to defend voting for it.
I still want to know why he apparently abandoned that whole "We get multiple reconciliations" thing from when this term just started.
Okay, cool, we got this stuff. Now let's do a super mini-reconciliation for the insulin stuff only. Make Lindsay Graham really pissy about not getting to be on vacation. I do know we're butting up against campaigning time, but that still hits Republicans more than Dems.
Insulin would still be struck by the Parliamentarian because regulating private health insurance plans is regulatory, not budgetary. They also haven't abandoned multiple Reconciliation Bills. They still need to do the full budget appropriations for 2023 before fiscal year's end.
The Parliamentarian is a gimmick role and can be replaced with a more cooperative one at any time. Republicans did it last time they ran Congress and wanted to get around the filibuster.
You can argue almost everything Congress does is budgetary.
I mean that is most of what congress is, who gets money, where money goes, are agencies acting as good stewards of government money. It’s a lot of the actual job. committees and sub-committees running through budget items agency reorganization efforts, regulatory items. Defending budget requests. The actual passing laws and voting on legislation is a small part of the actual work day…and fund raising but that’s a different issue entirely.
Schumer's honestly had a very good session, especially given the majority he has rests on a guy from a state Trump won by what, 40? And a not very bright person who is just there to represent private equity and troll for content.
Yeah, Schumer overall seems to have played his hand pretty well. From what we've seen today maybe even better then expected. In the end he got a bunch of stuff through. And maybe even more to come.
This is also exactly the reason you keep people like Manchin and Sinema in the caucus, no matter how stupid and irritating they are.
And between these last minute wins and the Dobbs stuff, it may even help us keep the Senate.
Allow me to break down the sentence as I read it.
"And between Item A (these last minute wins) and Item B (the Dobbs stuff), it may even help us keep the Senate."
Item A and Item B may help Democrats keep control of the Senate.
Item A and Item B may produce a good electoral outcome for the Democrats.
My issue is with framing Item B (the Dobbs stuff) as a good electoral outcome for the Democrats. Again, I would not consider this a bad faith reading because I am not, in reading the sentence, intending to deceive others of the meaning of the sentence. That is, legitimately, how I read that sentence.
Oghulk on
+1
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
If you say so
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Schumer's honestly had a very good session, especially given the majority he has rests on a guy from a state Trump won by what, 40? And a not very bright person who is just there to represent private equity and troll for content.
Yeah, Schumer overall seems to have played his hand pretty well. From what we've seen today maybe even better then expected. In the end he got a bunch of stuff through. And maybe even more to come.
This is also exactly the reason you keep people like Manchin and Sinema in the caucus, no matter how stupid and irritating they are.
Yeah, if we'd gone with "fuck Manchin, run him out of the party, who even cares anymore" none of this would've happened. It's a modest win, but in context it's not nothing. And between these last minute wins and the Dobbs stuff, it may even help us keep the Senate.
I am slightly less despondent than I was previously about the midterms!
Can we please not refer to Dobbs as a political win for the democrat party? Millions of people now suffer from the loss of bodily autonomy because of it.
That's a reading comprehension error. "And" is used to join separate clauses or separate words that share the same part of speech, intended to be taken jointly, but are individually separate.
To analogize, if I said "Between the wheat harvests and the number of people dead of the plague, we should have enough in our granaries for winter", no one would assume that the plague dead are actually a harvest, and could we please stop equating plague deaths to wheat harvests.
If perhaps ElJeffe said "...With these political wins among them Dobbs..." or the equivalent, sure, ElJeffe woulda been comparing Dobbs to a win, but that is not the case here.
Schumer's honestly had a very good session, especially given the majority he has rests on a guy from a state Trump won by what, 40? And a not very bright person who is just there to represent private equity and troll for content.
Yeah, Schumer overall seems to have played his hand pretty well. From what we've seen today maybe even better then expected. In the end he got a bunch of stuff through. And maybe even more to come.
This is also exactly the reason you keep people like Manchin and Sinema in the caucus, no matter how stupid and irritating they are.
Yeah, if we'd gone with "fuck Manchin, run him out of the party, who even cares anymore" none of this would've happened. It's a modest win, but in context it's not nothing. And between these last minute wins and the Dobbs stuff, it may even help us keep the Senate.
I am slightly less despondent than I was previously about the midterms!
Can we please not refer to Dobbs as a political win for the democrat party? Millions of people now suffer from the loss of bodily autonomy because of it.
That's a reading comprehension error. "And" is used to join separate clauses or separate words that share the same part of speech, intended to be taken jointly, but are individually separate.
To analogize, if I said "Between the wheat harvests and the number of people dead of the plague, we should have enough in our granaries for winter", no one would assume that the plague dead are actually a harvest, and could we please stop equating plague deaths to wheat harvests.
If perhaps ElJeffe said "...With these political wins among them Dobbs..." or the equivalent, sure, ElJeffe woulda been comparing Dobbs to a win, but that is not the case here.
To me your analogy is not an example of a lack of reading comprehension, but unclear writing. It doesn't actually stipulate what "we should have enough" of. Yes, one can make the assumption that it refers to harvest, but in a more ambiguous case (as I would argue El Jeffe's statement is) then I'd submit the lack of clarity can lead to multiple interpretations.
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I guess I can be blamed for 2024 senate stuff. Really my point had been, that we're stuck with both those assholes and Sinema has probably been the worst of the two, as evidenced by the last minute shit she pulled. Manchin is fucking awful, but you at leas know he is going to be consistent and when you have him on board he won't fuck it up last minute during the vote.
Ideally, we get enough democrats in the Senate this fall, while keeping the house, that neither one of those jackasses matters. Barring that, just one more democratic senator probably makes shit less fucked up because you can cut out Sinema, who we can realistically replace in 2024 as of right now. She's the one that likes to pull last minute crazy bullshit for the fucking oligarchs when everyone thought she was committed. Manchin at least will stick to the agreement once he agrees to go in for a vote.
Anyways, I really hope Schumer queues up all the good shit that the GOP has been blocking for years, but not voting on because they know the optics look bad. Figure if you aren't getting much done in the Senate, you can start giving people actually voting records to work with. Maybe the shithead republicans back down and you get some solid stuff through, if not you get to campaign on them being awful in an easy to prove way. Mitch's strategy when he was majority leader, was also to make sure the GOP got their awful policy shit, but in a way where they didn't have to defend voting for it.
I still want to know why he apparently abandoned that whole "We get multiple reconciliations" thing from when this term just started.
Okay, cool, we got this stuff. Now let's do a super mini-reconciliation for the insulin stuff only. Make Lindsay Graham really pissy about not getting to be on vacation. I do know we're butting up against campaigning time, but that still hits Republicans more than Dems.
Insulin would still be struck by the Parliamentarian because regulating private health insurance plans is regulatory, not budgetary. They also haven't abandoned multiple Reconciliation Bills. They still need to do the full budget appropriations for 2023 before fiscal year's end.
The Parliamentarian is a gimmick role and can be replaced with a more cooperative one at any time. Republicans did it last time they ran Congress and wanted to get around the filibuster.
You can argue almost everything Congress does is budgetary.
I mean that is most of what congress is, who gets money, where money goes, are agencies acting as good stewards of government money. It’s a lot of the actual job. committees and sub-committees running through budget items agency reorganization efforts, regulatory items. Defending budget requests. The actual passing laws and voting on legislation is a small part of the actual work day…and fund raising but that’s a different issue entirely.
Yeah...I know hence the bolded? My point is, the Senate doesn't have to cede authority to the parliamentarian unless it wants to. It's not a constitutional role and its existence is mutually inclusive to the filibuster.
Schumer's honestly had a very good session, especially given the majority he has rests on a guy from a state Trump won by what, 40? And a not very bright person who is just there to represent private equity and troll for content.
Yeah, Schumer overall seems to have played his hand pretty well. From what we've seen today maybe even better then expected. In the end he got a bunch of stuff through. And maybe even more to come.
This is also exactly the reason you keep people like Manchin and Sinema in the caucus, no matter how stupid and irritating they are.
Yeah, if we'd gone with "fuck Manchin, run him out of the party, who even cares anymore" none of this would've happened. It's a modest win, but in context it's not nothing. And between these last minute wins and the Dobbs stuff, it may even help us keep the Senate.
I am slightly less despondent than I was previously about the midterms!
Can we please not refer to Dobbs as a political win for the democrat party? Millions of people now suffer from the loss of bodily autonomy because of it.
That's a reading comprehension error. "And" is used to join separate clauses or separate words that share the same part of speech, intended to be taken jointly, but are individually separate.
To analogize, if I said "Between the wheat harvests and the number of people dead of the plague, we should have enough in our granaries for winter", no one would assume that the plague dead are actually a harvest, and could we please stop equating plague deaths to wheat harvests.
If perhaps ElJeffe said "...With these political wins among them Dobbs..." or the equivalent, sure, ElJeffe woulda been comparing Dobbs to a win, but that is not the case here.
To me your analogy is not an example of a lack of reading comprehension, but unclear writing. It doesn't actually stipulate what "we should have enough" of. Yes, one can make the assumption that it refers to harvest, but in a more ambiguous case (as I would argue El Jeffe's statement is) then I'd submit the lack of clarity can lead to multiple interpretations.
I must say, I've never had reason to confuse butter as some very strange variety of bread in the phrase "bread and butter", or ask why my jelly isn't some odd type of peanut butter in "peanut butter and jelly sandwich" but...
Schumer's honestly had a very good session, especially given the majority he has rests on a guy from a state Trump won by what, 40? And a not very bright person who is just there to represent private equity and troll for content.
Yeah, Schumer overall seems to have played his hand pretty well. From what we've seen today maybe even better then expected. In the end he got a bunch of stuff through. And maybe even more to come.
This is also exactly the reason you keep people like Manchin and Sinema in the caucus, no matter how stupid and irritating they are.
Yeah, if we'd gone with "fuck Manchin, run him out of the party, who even cares anymore" none of this would've happened. It's a modest win, but in context it's not nothing. And between these last minute wins and the Dobbs stuff, it may even help us keep the Senate.
I am slightly less despondent than I was previously about the midterms!
Can we please not refer to Dobbs as a political win for the democrat party? Millions of people now suffer from the loss of bodily autonomy because of it.
That's a reading comprehension error. "And" is used to join separate clauses or separate words that share the same part of speech, intended to be taken jointly, but are individually separate.
To analogize, if I said "Between the wheat harvests and the number of people dead of the plague, we should have enough in our granaries for winter", no one would assume that the plague dead are actually a harvest, and could we please stop equating plague deaths to wheat harvests.
If perhaps ElJeffe said "...With these political wins among them Dobbs..." or the equivalent, sure, ElJeffe woulda been comparing Dobbs to a win, but that is not the case here.
To me your analogy is not an example of a lack of reading comprehension, but unclear writing. It doesn't actually stipulate what "we should have enough" of. Yes, one can make the assumption that it refers to harvest, but in a more ambiguous case (as I would argue El Jeffe's statement is) then I'd submit the lack of clarity can lead to multiple interpretations.
I must say, I've never had reason to confuse butter as some very strange variety of bread in the phrase "bread and butter", or ask why my jelly isn't some odd type of peanut butter in "peanut butter and jelly sandwich" but...
Well now you're just using a completely different analogy!
The post was very clearly saying between the good the Democrats have done and the bad the Republicans have done maybe people will actually vote for Democrats in the midterms.
+15
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
That's not clear at all. The statement absolutely is "this and Dobbs will help us keep the Senate"
Sorry, I spoke imprecisely.
Dobbs is an abomination, but the backlash in the face of it is a positive thing, and that backlash is what I find heartening (coupled with the upcoming legislative wins). I didn't mean to imply that Dobbs was a good thing because it helps us score PolitiPoints, and apologize for inadvertently suggesting that.
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.
Schumer's honestly had a very good session, especially given the majority he has rests on a guy from a state Trump won by what, 40? And a not very bright person who is just there to represent private equity and troll for content.
Yeah, Schumer overall seems to have played his hand pretty well. From what we've seen today maybe even better then expected. In the end he got a bunch of stuff through. And maybe even more to come.
This is also exactly the reason you keep people like Manchin and Sinema in the caucus, no matter how stupid and irritating they are.
Yeah, if we'd gone with "fuck Manchin, run him out of the party, who even cares anymore" none of this would've happened. It's a modest win, but in context it's not nothing. And between these last minute wins and the Dobbs stuff, it may even help us keep the Senate.
I am slightly less despondent than I was previously about the midterms!
Can we please not refer to Dobbs as a political win for the democrat party? Millions of people now suffer from the loss of bodily autonomy because of it.
That's a reading comprehension error. "And" is used to join separate clauses or separate words that share the same part of speech, intended to be taken jointly, but are individually separate.
To analogize, if I said "Between the wheat harvests and the number of people dead of the plague, we should have enough in our granaries for winter", no one would assume that the plague dead are actually a harvest, and could we please stop equating plague deaths to wheat harvests.
If perhaps ElJeffe said "...With these political wins among them Dobbs..." or the equivalent, sure, ElJeffe woulda been comparing Dobbs to a win, but that is not the case here.
To me your analogy is not an example of a lack of reading comprehension, but unclear writing. It doesn't actually stipulate what "we should have enough" of. Yes, one can make the assumption that it refers to harvest, but in a more ambiguous case (as I would argue El Jeffe's statement is) then I'd submit the lack of clarity can lead to multiple interpretations.
I must say, I've never had reason to confuse butter as some very strange variety of bread in the phrase "bread and butter", or ask why my jelly isn't some odd type of peanut butter in "peanut butter and jelly sandwich" but...
Well now you're just using a completely different analogy!
That's not clear at all. The statement absolutely is "this and Dobbs will help us keep the Senate"
Sorry, I spoke imprecisely.
Dobbs is an abomination, but the backlash in the face of it is a positive thing, and that backlash is what I find heartening (coupled with the upcoming legislative wins). I didn't mean to imply that Dobbs was a good thing because it helps us score PolitiPoints, and apologize for inadvertently suggesting that.
I appreciate you saying that.
+3
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Sinema potentially working with Republicans to torpedo the entire deal by amending it to change the tax on rich people to a tax on poor people.
Fun.
But remember, dems get to nominate some judges!
And reduce carbon dioxide emissions ~40% from 2005 levels.
*edit*
Also, Medicare negotiating prescription drug prices and automatic IRS tax filing for the vast majority of filers is... huge. Like, on their own both of those are impressive achievements against lobbyists
Sinema potentially working with Republicans to torpedo the entire deal by amending it to change the tax on rich people to a tax on poor people.
Fun.
But remember, dems get to nominate some judges!
And reduce carbon dioxide emissions ~40% from 2005 levels.
*edit*
Also, Medicare negotiating prescription drug prices and automatic IRS tax filing for the vast majority of filers is... huge. Like, on their own both of those are impressive achievements against lobbyists
Wait. Really?
almost
allows the IRS to set up their own online filing system
which could enable them to have that shit already filled out when you log in, but that's jumping ahead a couple of steps
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Sinema potentially working with Republicans to torpedo the entire deal by amending it to change the tax on rich people to a tax on poor people.
Fun.
But remember, dems get to nominate some judges!
And reduce carbon dioxide emissions ~40% from 2005 levels.
*edit*
Also, Medicare negotiating prescription drug prices and automatic IRS tax filing for the vast majority of filers is... huge. Like, on their own both of those are impressive achievements against lobbyists
Wait. Really?
almost
allows the IRS to set up their own online filing system
which could enable them to have that shit already filled out when you log in, but that's jumping ahead a couple of steps
No matter what it is a huge middle finger to like Turbotax and stuff which is good.
For most Americans it will hopefully make filing a single button press. And hopefully in the end for those of us with more complex taxes not taking the standard deduction it is easy to use as well.
No matter what it is a huge middle finger to like Turbotax and stuff which is good.
Ooh wait what did I miss about Turbo Tax? Like don't get me wrong I think it's ridiculous that Americans have to spend money every year to file the taxes they've already paid but is there something else in particular going on here?
No matter what it is a huge middle finger to like Turbotax and stuff which is good.
Ooh wait what did I miss about Turbo Tax? Like don't get me wrong I think it's ridiculous that Americans have to spend money every year to file the taxes they've already paid but is there something else in particular going on here?
Turbotax is the king of manipulating people who don't have to spend money to file taxes. In fact they are basically the example of dark patterns in their UI. They and other companies basically lobbied to prevent the IRS from making an easy to use system for filing. And are in general terrible.
The majority of Americans shouldn't have to a pay cent to file their taxes. It is something 60% or something should file a simple return and be done which is basically automated.
Posts
It was Schumer who was negotiating with Manchin on BBB remember- Biden was negotiating across the caucus
Gallego is fairy progressive, but also well-respected among House dems so I think the whole “primary her ass/the DNC better not back her” thing has already been solved for for some time now
His Congressional Twitter is pretty diplomatic, but he sends out about 150 tweets a day from his personal account and holds nothing back
Yeah, in the end there's still a limited number of them and so they end up an omnibus bills no matter what. And also given how cranky idiot senators can get about needing to actually do stuff I imagine there was probably not support for making one or more of them a single issue thing.
Insulin would still be struck by the Parliamentarian because regulating private health insurance plans is regulatory, not budgetary. They also haven't abandoned multiple Reconciliation Bills. They still need to do the full budget appropriations for 2023 before fiscal year's end.
I.e two months
1 but it covers the whole period
Yep. Which, I wonder if the CR will cover up to the election, or through the election.
Can we please not refer to Dobbs as a political win for the democrat party? Millions of people now suffer from the loss of bodily autonomy because of it.
Dobbs will (probably) help Dems maybe keep the Senate but that does not mean it's a win and it seems in real bad faith to think ElJeffe was saying it was.
My request (that we stop thinking of major policy implications in terms of electoral outcomes) is not a bad faith reading.
It absolutely is a bad faith reading to jump to the conclusion that ElJeffe was describing Dobbs as a "political win for the democrat party", which is literally what you did, rather then just make the more obvious assumption that Dobbs is not a win but is something that will probably help Dems keep the Senate.
I am reading what was written at face value. Is your contention that I used the word "win" instead of more specifically "stop considering major policies in terms of positive electoral outcomes"? I figured that the two are colloquially equivalent enough that the shorter version would be better.
This is the US congress thread. We're going to talk about things that might impact the congress and how. And acknowledging and discussing the ways in which deeply political events will affect national politics does not inherently diminish the impact they have on real peoples lives.
You were wrong.
If you say so.
The Parliamentarian is a gimmick role and can be replaced with a more cooperative one at any time. Republicans did it last time they ran Congress and wanted to get around the filibuster.
You can argue almost everything Congress does is budgetary.
“It’s a modest win” can only refer to the recent bills that were passed and then “between those wins and Dobbs” clearly separates the wins, which were just being talked about being the legislation that was passed, from Dobbs, which is then not described as a win.
For freaking real how could you possibly read that in the way you claim to have read it?
No, Elizabeth MacDonough has been Parliamentarian since 2012.
I guess I read it that way with my eyes.
Like if y'all wanna jump down my throat for it then sure go right ahead.
Allow me to break down the sentence as I read it.
"And between Item A (these last minute wins) and Item B (the Dobbs stuff), it may even help us keep the Senate."
Item A and Item B may help Democrats keep control of the Senate.
Item A and Item B may produce a good electoral outcome for the Democrats.
My issue is with framing Item B (the Dobbs stuff) as a good electoral outcome for the Democrats. Again, I would not consider this a bad faith reading because I am not, in reading the sentence, intending to deceive others of the meaning of the sentence. That is, legitimately, how I read that sentence.
Bad things are still bad though.
Thanks for the chuckle, made me feel better
That's a reading comprehension error. "And" is used to join separate clauses or separate words that share the same part of speech, intended to be taken jointly, but are individually separate.
To analogize, if I said "Between the wheat harvests and the number of people dead of the plague, we should have enough in our granaries for winter", no one would assume that the plague dead are actually a harvest, and could we please stop equating plague deaths to wheat harvests.
If perhaps ElJeffe said "...With these political wins among them Dobbs..." or the equivalent, sure, ElJeffe woulda been comparing Dobbs to a win, but that is not the case here.
To me your analogy is not an example of a lack of reading comprehension, but unclear writing. It doesn't actually stipulate what "we should have enough" of. Yes, one can make the assumption that it refers to harvest, but in a more ambiguous case (as I would argue El Jeffe's statement is) then I'd submit the lack of clarity can lead to multiple interpretations.
Yeah...I know hence the bolded? My point is, the Senate doesn't have to cede authority to the parliamentarian unless it wants to. It's not a constitutional role and its existence is mutually inclusive to the filibuster.
I must say, I've never had reason to confuse butter as some very strange variety of bread in the phrase "bread and butter", or ask why my jelly isn't some odd type of peanut butter in "peanut butter and jelly sandwich" but...
Well now you're just using a completely different analogy!
Sorry, I spoke imprecisely.
Dobbs is an abomination, but the backlash in the face of it is a positive thing, and that backlash is what I find heartening (coupled with the upcoming legislative wins). I didn't mean to imply that Dobbs was a good thing because it helps us score PolitiPoints, and apologize for inadvertently suggesting that.
Dude just take the L and move on
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I appreciate you saying that.
Wait. Really?
almost
allows the IRS to set up their own online filing system
which could enable them to have that shit already filled out when you log in, but that's jumping ahead a couple of steps
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
No matter what it is a huge middle finger to like Turbotax and stuff which is good.
For most Americans it will hopefully make filing a single button press. And hopefully in the end for those of us with more complex taxes not taking the standard deduction it is easy to use as well.
Ooh wait what did I miss about Turbo Tax? Like don't get me wrong I think it's ridiculous that Americans have to spend money every year to file the taxes they've already paid but is there something else in particular going on here?
Turbotax is the king of manipulating people who don't have to spend money to file taxes. In fact they are basically the example of dark patterns in their UI. They and other companies basically lobbied to prevent the IRS from making an easy to use system for filing. And are in general terrible.
The majority of Americans shouldn't have to a pay cent to file their taxes. It is something 60% or something should file a simple return and be done which is basically automated.
John Oliver has a really great video on this.