It's really difficult to mayor to not cover up a murder or two along the way, says the former Democratic VP nominee, as he plans to vote yes for Rahm. Pathetic. What's the final count gonna be for senators who don't debase themselves by the end of this thing? Somewhere between 0 and 2?
So if the child tax credit, college, childcare, and climate stuff are gone from this bill what's actually left? Not being snarky, I've just never seen full enumeration of this bill
So if the child tax credit, college, childcare, and climate stuff are gone from this bill what's actually left? Not being snarky, I've just never seen full enumeration of this bill
So if the child tax credit, college, childcare, and climate stuff are gone from this bill what's actually left? Not being snarky, I've just never seen full enumeration of this bill
There is no bill and never will be.
This whole thing has been a waste of time.
Not if the Dem party can get the proper messaging.
is there a way they could not give rahm emanuel a cushy, high status job
is there a constitutional amendment requiring it. it seems like it should be easy to not do that, if one's principles were to not reward someone like him
is there a way they could not give rahm emanuel a cushy, high status job
is there a constitutional amendment requiring it. it seems like it should be easy to not do that, if one's principles were to not reward someone like him
Now to be fair, I don't recall any of the Democratic leadership's stated principles to approximate to that.
So if the child tax credit, college, childcare, and climate stuff are gone from this bill what's actually left? Not being snarky, I've just never seen full enumeration of this bill
There is no bill and never will be.
This whole thing has been a waste of time.
I think you are wrong but even if you are correct about there being no bill trying and failing is not a waste of time.
is there a way they could not give rahm emanuel a cushy, high status job
is there a constitutional amendment requiring it. it seems like it should be easy to not do that, if one's principles were to not reward someone like him
Given his apparently connections within the party, it seems not.
I don’t think that there’s sufficient evidence to suggest that Rahm is being given the position by obligation or under duress. The simplest and most likely circumstance is simply that he is liked well enough to be given the position.
So if the child tax credit, college, childcare, and climate stuff are gone from this bill what's actually left? Not being snarky, I've just never seen full enumeration of this bill
There is no bill and never will be.
This whole thing has been a waste of time.
I think you are wrong but even if you are correct about there being no bill trying and failing is not a waste of time.
Only if you learn from it. This has happened before with 2000 Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman and healthcare, as we are all aware. And yet here we are again, letting feckless centrists run all over us. That $250 a month tax credit has dramatically helped us every month. And pretty soon it's going away.
Over and over I've seen people say "he'll be there when it counts" and they were all wrong. Again and again.
At least with Lieberman we still got a significant piece of flawed legislation. This time I honestly believe Manchin is going to end up scuttling any form of infrastructure bill, the bipartisan or the reconciliation bills.
Not to mention Sinema and her being a complete wildcard willing to sink anything good. We didn't learn anything last time, when they actually were able to accomplish at least part of their goals. Are they going to learn anything this time?
is there a way they could not give rahm emanuel a cushy, high status job
is there a constitutional amendment requiring it. it seems like it should be easy to not do that, if one's principles were to not reward someone like him
Given his apparently connections within the party, it seems not.
no, they chose to give him a cushy job because they value that relationship more than they are upset by the fact that he helped cover up the murder of a minor. this didn't have to happen, it was a decision that was made, deliberately, on purpose, like every other decision.
I don’t think that there’s sufficient evidence to suggest that Rahm is being given the position by obligation or under duress. The simplest and most likely circumstance is simply that he is liked well enough to be given the position.
Except he was angling for a better job from what we know. The simplest explanation is that they don't want to give him a cabinet position like he wants but they are fine with giving him an ambassadorship with little political influence.
So if the child tax credit, college, childcare, and climate stuff are gone from this bill what's actually left? Not being snarky, I've just never seen full enumeration of this bill
There is no bill and never will be.
This whole thing has been a waste of time.
I think you are wrong but even if you are correct about there being no bill trying and failing is not a waste of time.
Only if you learn from it. This has happened before with 2000 Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman and healthcare, as we are all aware. And yet here we are again, letting feckless centrists run all over us. That $250 a month tax credit has dramatically helped us every month. And pretty soon it's going away.
Over and over I've seen people say "he'll be there when it counts" and they were all wrong. Again and again.
At least with Lieberman we still got a significant piece of flawed legislation. This time I honestly believe Manchin is going to end up scuttling any form of infrastructure bill, the bipartisan or the reconciliation bills.
Not to mention Sinema and her being a complete wildcard willing to sink anything good. We didn't learn anything last time, when they actually were able to accomplish at least part of their goals. Are they going to learn anything this time?
Aside from the doomsaying, I'm not even sure what your point is.
What did you learn? The shittiest last vote you need defines the limit of how good a law can be.
It's the exact same thing we have here.
If we had more seats, Manchin would matter less. If we had two more seats, him and Sinema threatening to vote with the Republicans means that fuck - Feinstein? I dunno even who - is the biggest hurdle and we deal with them.
It sucks, its what it is, none of us are happy about it, but saying burn it all down it doesn't matter is just accelerationist bullshit that is the reason we're clawing for the narrowest margin to pass anything instead of doing more.
But whatever I guess. I am still fairly confident something that is going to do a lot of good for a lot of Americans - even if its not nearly as much as it should be - is going to pass. And just like when we were debating the eviction moratum it matters even if its not everything you want or even should get in a fair and just world.
Look, ElJeffe has banned talking about centerist vs progressives/leftists as well as past elections, so honestly I can't say what the lesson is without breaking rules. I believe the problem starts with who the party chooses to back in primaries, the obsession with tradition and norms, and running away from their more progressive members. They can't get more seats because they're bad at getting good candidates that have a spine and aren't corrupt, as well as actually marketing them. This idea that the party can only be failed is baloney.
That's what I've learned. But I really do need to take a step back from posting. The Manchin news from today hit me at just the wrong time before my ADHD meds set in and I've been spiraling just a bit. I mean, I'm not wrong on the bill being basically dead. But I've been a little overly emotional here. Apologies.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) is opposed to raising tax rates on corporations and high-income households, prompting Democrats to consider paying for their social spending package in other ways, according to media reports.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Sinema has told lobbyists that she's opposed to rate hikes, and as a result, Democrats are looking into crafting legislation that excludes those proposals.
The Journal reported that proposals related to increasing taxes on U.S. companies' foreign earnings and strengthening IRS enforcement remain options for Democrats.
Hi, I'm ElJeffe! You might remember me from such posts as "Stop talking about offtopic stuff!" and "Seriously, stop fucking driving the thread offtopic goddammit!"
The left-vs-center debate may be considered eternally offtopic in here. And probably everywhere else, too. Rest assured that everyone in here knows exactly what your position is on the subject, since anyone who has an opinion has made sure to voice it roughly 83 times. We know. We get it. We are done here.
There is admittedly a fine line between mentioning the very real disagreements between different factions of non- conservatives, and perpetuating this exhausting forum civil war. If you are unsure whether your post crosses a line, you are invited to err on the side of caution. Because I have no problem jumping in here to infract or boot a dozen people for kicking off a Cat-5 derp-icane in the report forum.
Thank you and goodnight.
@ElJeffe Might want to add some variant of this to the Rules for Politics Threads sticky so it doesn't get missed by people who don't obsessively follow this particular thread?
To clarify, this rule is just for this thread thus far, since this thread is particularly bad about turning into the same old circular argument every time the issue arises. The subject isn't verboten in other threads yet, but if the same problem arises, then yep, it'll extend there, as well. And if the upshot is that people who cannot discern between "criticizing/defending democrats" and "copy-pasting the same half dozen sentences into every thread ad nauseum" don't have a thread in which to post those half dozen sentences, welp, them's the breaks.
The nature of this forum as a place where a bunch of people can get together and talk about stuff in an enjoyable and non-toxic fashion takes precedent over the existence of any particular subject, which is why various subjects have been nixed over the years. Hopefully this doesn't become one of them.
Hope that clears things up!
@bogart Could we please have this added to the OP?
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) is opposed to raising tax rates on corporations and high-income households, prompting Democrats to consider paying for their social spending package in other ways, according to media reports.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Sinema has told lobbyists that she's opposed to rate hikes, and as a result, Democrats are looking into crafting legislation that excludes those proposals.
The Journal reported that proposals related to increasing taxes on U.S. companies' foreign earnings and strengthening IRS enforcement remain options for Democrats.
Well, that's actually really it, since without repealing Trump's tax cuts we can't actually pay for anything and our stupid fucking rules mean it has to be budget-neutral.
I hate this reality. Fuck everyone who got us here.
+30
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
wasn't the proposal to raise taxes to a level between the current Trump level and the previous Obama level?
+1
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
is there a way they could not give rahm emanuel a cushy, high status job
is there a constitutional amendment requiring it. it seems like it should be easy to not do that, if one's principles were to not reward someone like him
Given his apparently connections within the party, it seems not.
no, they chose to give him a cushy job because they value that relationship more than they are upset by the fact that he helped cover up the murder of a minor. this didn't have to happen, it was a decision that was made, deliberately, on purpose, like every other decision.
For someone like Rahm Emanuel, who is an asshole for whom power and influence are the only things he cares about, being the ambassador to Japan is not a cushy or prestigious job.
Because it is considered a cushy prestigious job he can't really complain about it though.
But for him it's a parking spot he's at least temporarily stuck in.
I say temporarily because fully expect him to resign the post at some point so he can come back to the States and continue trying to increase his power and influence but fuck it I'll take what I can get.
There is an easy way to preven Rahm from amassing further power and influence and that is to tell him "nope, you fucked up and the covered up the murder of a teenager by police, you're done within this party at a federal level and a state level if we can manage it."
Like, handing him an ambassadorship isn't this sneaky brilliant way of removing him from the political realm so he can't cover up cops shooting black people.
The way to do that is to excise him from the party to the highest degree you can. It is totally within Biden's ability to do so, he is not being forced to give Rahm this job. He could withdraw his nomination today if he wanted.
What is says is that not only does the White House not care enough about the issue of police brutality in America, particularly against one of the groups that forms one of it's core constituencies, it cares so little that it is willing to take a person who exemplifies the issue (literally helping cover up a murder) and send them to represent their nation.
There is an easy way to preven Rahm from amassing further power and influence and that is to tell him "nope, you fucked up and the covered up the murder of a teenager by police, you're done within this party at a federal level and a state level if we can manage it."
Like, handing him an ambassadorship isn't this sneaky brilliant way of removing him from the political realm so he can't cover up cops shooting black people.
The way to do that is to excise him from the party to the highest degree you can. It is totally within Biden's ability to do so, he is not being forced to give Rahm this job. He could withdraw his nomination today if he wanted.
What is says is that not only does the White House not care enough about the issue of police brutality in America, particularly against one of the groups that forms one of it's core constituencies, it cares so little that it is willing to take a person who exemplifies the issue (literally helping cover up a murder) and send them to represent their nation.
it's the lowest possible stakes
there's no rahm emanuel constiuency to lose if you tell him to pound sand
Giving Rahm this job is like giving Buttigieg a cabinet appointment. The party assumes they can't fuck it up too bad and it lets them stay in the club until the next go around.
There is an easy way to preven Rahm from amassing further power and influence and that is to tell him "nope, you fucked up and the covered up the murder of a teenager by police, you're done within this party at a federal level and a state level if we can manage it."
Like, handing him an ambassadorship isn't this sneaky brilliant way of removing him from the political realm so he can't cover up cops shooting black people.
The way to do that is to excise him from the party to the highest degree you can. It is totally within Biden's ability to do so, he is not being forced to give Rahm this job. He could withdraw his nomination today if he wanted.
What is says is that not only does the White House not care enough about the issue of police brutality in America, particularly against one of the groups that forms one of it's core constituencies, it cares so little that it is willing to take a person who exemplifies the issue (literally helping cover up a murder) and send them to represent their nation.
it's the lowest possible stakes
there's no rahm emanuel constiuency to lose if you tell him to pound sand
and yet
Sure there is. That's what people have been talking about this whole time. Just because that constituency is not voters doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There is an easy way to preven Rahm from amassing further power and influence and that is to tell him "nope, you fucked up and the covered up the murder of a teenager by police, you're done within this party at a federal level and a state level if we can manage it."
Like, handing him an ambassadorship isn't this sneaky brilliant way of removing him from the political realm so he can't cover up cops shooting black people.
The way to do that is to excise him from the party to the highest degree you can. It is totally within Biden's ability to do so, he is not being forced to give Rahm this job. He could withdraw his nomination today if he wanted.
What is says is that not only does the White House not care enough about the issue of police brutality in America, particularly against one of the groups that forms one of it's core constituencies, it cares so little that it is willing to take a person who exemplifies the issue (literally helping cover up a murder) and send them to represent their nation.
it's the lowest possible stakes
there's no rahm emanuel constiuency to lose if you tell him to pound sand
and yet
Sure there is. That's what people have been talking about this whole time. Just because that constituency is not voters doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There is an easy way to preven Rahm from amassing further power and influence and that is to tell him "nope, you fucked up and the covered up the murder of a teenager by police, you're done within this party at a federal level and a state level if we can manage it."
Like, handing him an ambassadorship isn't this sneaky brilliant way of removing him from the political realm so he can't cover up cops shooting black people.
The way to do that is to excise him from the party to the highest degree you can. It is totally within Biden's ability to do so, he is not being forced to give Rahm this job. He could withdraw his nomination today if he wanted.
What is says is that not only does the White House not care enough about the issue of police brutality in America, particularly against one of the groups that forms one of it's core constituencies, it cares so little that it is willing to take a person who exemplifies the issue (literally helping cover up a murder) and send them to represent their nation.
it's the lowest possible stakes
there's no rahm emanuel constiuency to lose if you tell him to pound sand
and yet
Sure there is. That's what people have been talking about this whole time. Just because that constituency is not voters doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I agree, the DNC cares more about maintaining its relationship with wealthy donors than it does for any semblance of justice for people murdered by the police.
There is an easy way to preven Rahm from amassing further power and influence and that is to tell him "nope, you fucked up and the covered up the murder of a teenager by police, you're done within this party at a federal level and a state level if we can manage it."
Like, handing him an ambassadorship isn't this sneaky brilliant way of removing him from the political realm so he can't cover up cops shooting black people.
The way to do that is to excise him from the party to the highest degree you can. It is totally within Biden's ability to do so, he is not being forced to give Rahm this job. He could withdraw his nomination today if he wanted.
What is says is that not only does the White House not care enough about the issue of police brutality in America, particularly against one of the groups that forms one of it's core constituencies, it cares so little that it is willing to take a person who exemplifies the issue (literally helping cover up a murder) and send them to represent their nation.
it's the lowest possible stakes
there's no rahm emanuel constiuency to lose if you tell him to pound sand
and yet
Sure there is. That's what people have been talking about this whole time. Just because that constituency is not voters doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I agree, the DNC cares more about maintaining its relationship with wealthy donors than it does for any semblance of justice for people murdered by the police.
Rahm Emanuel is not in congress.
The DNC is not in congress.
This is the congress thread.
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.
Should we make another thread for discussing senate confirmation hearings and the political motivations and reasonings that go into them?
We used to have one
0
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
Are there other options to keep it budget neutral? What would that be cutting existing programs to transfer money to ones we want? Presumably Manchin/Sinema would be against anything we'd want though.
Sinema being opposed to raising taxes on corporations and the rich seems like a serious problem. Like, she's not trying to negotiate anything, she's literally just trying to sink the bill. Cause it sure seems like there's no way around that.
+22
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
So I guess Sinema had a little advisory council made up of some military veterans until today when they resigned in protest.
In a letter they sent to the NYT, they accuse her of using them as "window dressing" while she is “hanging your constituents out to dry” among other things. It looks like the donors she's been pandering to are the only allies she has left anymore.
Posts
It's really difficult to mayor to not cover up a murder or two along the way, says the former Democratic VP nominee, as he plans to vote yes for Rahm. Pathetic. What's the final count gonna be for senators who don't debase themselves by the end of this thing? Somewhere between 0 and 2?
There is no bill and never will be.
This whole thing has been a waste of time.
Not if the Dem party can get the proper messaging.
is there a constitutional amendment requiring it. it seems like it should be easy to not do that, if one's principles were to not reward someone like him
Now to be fair, I don't recall any of the Democratic leadership's stated principles to approximate to that.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think you are wrong but even if you are correct about there being no bill trying and failing is not a waste of time.
Given his apparently connections within the party, it seems not.
Only if you learn from it. This has happened before with 2000 Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman and healthcare, as we are all aware. And yet here we are again, letting feckless centrists run all over us. That $250 a month tax credit has dramatically helped us every month. And pretty soon it's going away.
Over and over I've seen people say "he'll be there when it counts" and they were all wrong. Again and again.
At least with Lieberman we still got a significant piece of flawed legislation. This time I honestly believe Manchin is going to end up scuttling any form of infrastructure bill, the bipartisan or the reconciliation bills.
Not to mention Sinema and her being a complete wildcard willing to sink anything good. We didn't learn anything last time, when they actually were able to accomplish at least part of their goals. Are they going to learn anything this time?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
no, they chose to give him a cushy job because they value that relationship more than they are upset by the fact that he helped cover up the murder of a minor. this didn't have to happen, it was a decision that was made, deliberately, on purpose, like every other decision.
Good one. I am wholeheartedly owned. I will once again go back to lurking. Bye.
Oh, nice on the agrees too. Glad to see so many people who I've engaged with for almost two decades also think that my post was worth mocking. Hi5
Except he was angling for a better job from what we know. The simplest explanation is that they don't want to give him a cabinet position like he wants but they are fine with giving him an ambassadorship with little political influence.
Aside from the doomsaying, I'm not even sure what your point is.
What did you learn? The shittiest last vote you need defines the limit of how good a law can be.
It's the exact same thing we have here.
If we had more seats, Manchin would matter less. If we had two more seats, him and Sinema threatening to vote with the Republicans means that fuck - Feinstein? I dunno even who - is the biggest hurdle and we deal with them.
It sucks, its what it is, none of us are happy about it, but saying burn it all down it doesn't matter is just accelerationist bullshit that is the reason we're clawing for the narrowest margin to pass anything instead of doing more.
But whatever I guess. I am still fairly confident something that is going to do a lot of good for a lot of Americans - even if its not nearly as much as it should be - is going to pass. And just like when we were debating the eviction moratum it matters even if its not everything you want or even should get in a fair and just world.
Alt post:
Man manchin is trying to get me kicked from the forum on page 24.
I mean even centrist Democrats instead of Republicans.
Because if instead of Collins there was another Manchin, you only need one of them to defect on the other and can play them off against each other.
This stupid narrow margin is the only reason he is a kingmaker. It's not ideal but better.
Remember the best Republican is worse than the worst Blue Dog Democrat. Don't ever forget who the true enemy is.
That's what I've learned. But I really do need to take a step back from posting. The Manchin news from today hit me at just the wrong time before my ADHD meds set in and I've been spiraling just a bit. I mean, I'm not wrong on the bill being basically dead. But I've been a little overly emotional here. Apologies.
@bogart Could we please have this added to the OP?
The ruling class?
Well, that's actually really it, since without repealing Trump's tax cuts we can't actually pay for anything and our stupid fucking rules mean it has to be budget-neutral.
I hate this reality. Fuck everyone who got us here.
Genuinely doesn't matter
Eat Arby's
Yes. I swear that was a Manchin ask too.
For someone like Rahm Emanuel, who is an asshole for whom power and influence are the only things he cares about, being the ambassador to Japan is not a cushy or prestigious job.
Because it is considered a cushy prestigious job he can't really complain about it though.
But for him it's a parking spot he's at least temporarily stuck in.
I say temporarily because fully expect him to resign the post at some point so he can come back to the States and continue trying to increase his power and influence but fuck it I'll take what I can get.
Like, handing him an ambassadorship isn't this sneaky brilliant way of removing him from the political realm so he can't cover up cops shooting black people.
The way to do that is to excise him from the party to the highest degree you can. It is totally within Biden's ability to do so, he is not being forced to give Rahm this job. He could withdraw his nomination today if he wanted.
What is says is that not only does the White House not care enough about the issue of police brutality in America, particularly against one of the groups that forms one of it's core constituencies, it cares so little that it is willing to take a person who exemplifies the issue (literally helping cover up a murder) and send them to represent their nation.
there's no rahm emanuel constiuency to lose if you tell him to pound sand
and yet
Sure there is. That's what people have been talking about this whole time. Just because that constituency is not voters doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Then you tell them to pound sand.
I agree, the DNC cares more about maintaining its relationship with wealthy donors than it does for any semblance of justice for people murdered by the police.
Rahm Emanuel is not in congress.
The DNC is not in congress.
This is the congress thread.
We used to have one
In a letter they sent to the NYT, they accuse her of using them as "window dressing" while she is “hanging your constituents out to dry” among other things. It looks like the donors she's been pandering to are the only allies she has left anymore.