Right, granted my brain just already runs with the idea that GOP was always going to remove abortion. So I forget that a ton of voters never grasped that despite all the rhetoric from the GOP and it wasn't until the shitty current SCOTUS overturned it, that people started to fucking grasp that the GOP meant what they said they were going to do.
"But that's just talk, they wouldn't actually..."
"Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it isn't talk now, it happened, they did it."
But (somehow) it's the Dems' fault for not stopping them.
My fatigued brain read these two comments next to each other and I thought Josh was blaming Dems for him feeling old as shit
Goddamn right I am! How is the so-called “left wing” party not going to uncover the secrets of eternal youth and offer it to me, specifically? Just another conservative party in disguise, smh.
+8
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
They had the White House and both side of Congress for two years. They could have outlawed growing old but they didn't even try!
As per usual, the Republicans fuck things up, and the best Democrats can do is return things to normal.
Under Obama, we were on a mostly "week = week" timeframe. Under Trump, we went to a "week = month", occasionally "week = year" timeframe. Biden has managed to get us back to a mostly "week = week" timeframe.
In a two-way race I'd be confident he'd win, but in a three-way with Sinema probably running on pure spite I'm rather nervous.
Iirc there’s 3-way polling with him still on top…there’s two gigantic caveats- the Republican candidate is TBD and polling nearly 2 years out is terrible BUT it confirms the Arizona electorate isn’t fooled by Sinema
Gallego has a ton of name recog as well, partly boosted by the unique situation where his ex-wife is the very popular mayor of Phoenix but kept his name
I mean, if Sinema hadn't gone full corrupt votes for cash "enlightened centrist" she might have a base to pull from, but I'm not really sure what vote she retains as an independent unless she goes hard on women's stuff, but that would also require shitty voting records on women's rights for Gallego, which I doubt is the case. The Dems she would theoretically cater to (center)don't vote independent.
+10
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
They had the White House and both side of Congress for two years. They could have outlawed growing old but they didn't even try!
As per usual, the Republicans fuck things up, and the best Democrats can do is return things to normal.
Under Obama, we were on a mostly "week = week" timeframe. Under Trump, we went to a "week = month", occasionally "week = year" timeframe. Biden has managed to get us back to a mostly "week = week" timeframe.
Excellent. Probably the three shakiest states for democrats to hold in next year's election are Montana, Ohio and West Virginia. Arizona isn't great, but I'll wait to see how things shake out, but kind of leaning towards that one not being as bad as the other three, since Sinema has pissed away enough good will with her bullshit and the GOP being batshit crazy. So it's probably a moot issue on whether to runs again or not. Hell, her being on the ballot might be more detrimental for the GOP than the democrats.
Anyways, I know Brown is running for reelection, so that is probably the best shot democrats have of retaining the Ohio seat. Not sure if Manchin is running for re-election or not. I despise the man, but as shitty as he is, he still leaps and bounds better than any republican that will end up replacing him, which is really telling of how shit the GOP is. Granted, I have my doubts he'd win reelection in West Virginia with how that state is trending.
Pickup options for democrats suck pretty bad. I suppose they could maybe net Florida, Texas or both. Both states are looking to run incumbents that people are increasingly get fed up with and if democrats could get the right candidate, which would be a fucking miracle given the state of the Florida democratic party, they might have a really good shot. Sadly, Florida might be the best one given how Rick Scott is trying to lick the socket that is Medicare and Social Security cuts and DeSantis might have overplayed his hand and made his fascism a bit too blatant for a majority of Floridians to ignore. I guess long shot actually would be Mississippi, there is a huge scandal that might actually let the democrats take the governor's mansion there and there is a sizable black population there. So with the backlash of Roe being overturned, the republicans royally fucking up there, the shit show that the republican held House is and long enough coattails, it's possible.
It's the Republican Party's seat to lose in West Virginia. But don't count out the ability of Republicans to punch themselves in the dick. A regular strength dipshit, and they coast to a win. A complete fraud (Dr Oz), a swivel eyed loon (Blake Masters), or a gibbering moron of Herschel's calibre, and the seat is up in the air.
I believe Manchin will likely end up against the state’s current Republican Governor (Jim Justice). He is most known for his plea to the state during COVID where he told them to “Follow the Fucking Guidelines”. He’s moderate and switched parties a couple of times between Dem and Republican, politically he’s probably even with Manchin in terms of terribleness (he treated COVID pretty seriously considering the state which gained some of my respect he never had previously). I imagine he’d be less of a barrier than Manchin overall except his party affiliation wouldn’t help the Dems hold the majority.
Excellent. Probably the three shakiest states for democrats to hold in next year's election are Montana, Ohio and West Virginia. Arizona isn't great, but I'll wait to see how things shake out, but kind of leaning towards that one not being as bad as the other three, since Sinema has pissed away enough good will with her bullshit and the GOP being batshit crazy. So it's probably a moot issue on whether to runs again or not. Hell, her being on the ballot might be more detrimental for the GOP than the democrats.
Anyways, I know Brown is running for reelection, so that is probably the best shot democrats have of retaining the Ohio seat. Not sure if Manchin is running for re-election or not. I despise the man, but as shitty as he is, he still leaps and bounds better than any republican that will end up replacing him, which is really telling of how shit the GOP is. Granted, I have my doubts he'd win reelection in West Virginia with how that state is trending.
Pickup options for democrats suck pretty bad. I suppose they could maybe net Florida, Texas or both. Both states are looking to run incumbents that people are increasingly get fed up with and if democrats could get the right candidate, which would be a fucking miracle given the state of the Florida democratic party, they might have a really good shot. Sadly, Florida might be the best one given how Rick Scott is trying to lick the socket that is Medicare and Social Security cuts and DeSantis might have overplayed his hand and made his fascism a bit too blatant for a majority of Floridians to ignore. I guess long shot actually would be Mississippi, there is a huge scandal that might actually let the democrats take the governor's mansion there and there is a sizable black population there. So with the backlash of Roe being overturned, the republicans royally fucking up there, the shit show that the republican held House is and long enough coattails, it's possible.
It's the Republican Party's seat to lose in West Virginia. But don't count out the ability of Republicans to punch themselves in the dick. A regular strength dipshit, and they coast to a win. A complete fraud (Dr Oz), a swivel eyed loon (Blake Masters), or a gibbering moron of Herschel's calibre, and the seat is up in the air.
I believe Manchin will likely end up against the state’s current Republican Governor (Jim Justice). He is most known for his plea to the state during COVID where he told them to “Follow the Fucking Guidelines”. He’s moderate and switched parties a couple of times between Dem and Republican, politically he’s probably even with Manchin in terms of terribleness (he treated COVID pretty seriously considering the state which gained some of my respect he never had previously). I imagine he’d be less of a barrier than Manchin overall except his party affiliation wouldn’t help the Dems hold the majority.
I'll take a badly written party switcheroo to play out in our favor, if that's what it takes. At this point I have no scruples about how Rs stay out of power.
Pragmatically speaking, Porter’s whole thing is fighting with rich assholes but represents a district that is 90% rich assholes so she’s either always restrained or at electoral risk…there might be more yacht-rock-friendly dem candidates who would do better there
I see either of the two have good potential and downsides. As I said I'd prefer Schiff, but either is leaps and bounds over who's currently there, and since I don't live in California I have no real say in the matter.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah porter has a lot more potential to make big moves in the senate than schiff does.
I like schiff but he has too much of a history as a hawk for me. He's absolutely going to get the bulk of support because he'll essentially pick right up where Feinstein left off.
Schiff is in a deep blue seat and will be in government as long as he wants to be. Porter is the one with shakey prospects if she doesnt move to the Senate.
Pragmatically speaking, Porter’s whole thing is fighting with rich assholes but represents a district that is 90% rich assholes so she’s either always restrained or at electoral risk…there might be more yacht-rock-friendly dem candidates who would do better there
I'll be mildly annoyed if her running for Senate loses us the seat, since it's a pretty close district
Pragmatically speaking, Porter’s whole thing is fighting with rich assholes but represents a district that is 90% rich assholes so she’s either always restrained or at electoral risk…there might be more yacht-rock-friendly dem candidates who would do better there
I'll be mildly annoyed if her running for Senate loses us the seat, since it's a pretty close district
I think a Harvey Rouda-esque candidate makes the seat safer tho, is my point
Porter’s whole thing is gleefully antagonizing essentially “Huntington Beach” with her whiteboard emasculation stuff
Iirc, Catalina Island, of Catalina Wine Mixer fame, is in her district
Yeah porter has a lot more potential to make big moves in the senate than schiff does.
I like schiff but he has too much of a history as a hawk for me. He's absolutely going to get the bulk of support because he'll essentially pick right up where Feinstein left off.
I think saying Schiff will continue Feinstein's work is a little unfair to him.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah porter has a lot more potential to make big moves in the senate than schiff does.
I like schiff but he has too much of a history as a hawk for me. He's absolutely going to get the bulk of support because he'll essentially pick right up where Feinstein left off.
I think saying Schiff will continue Feinstein's work is a little unfair to him.
Yeah it would be more accurate to say he'll continue her staffers' work
Yeah porter has a lot more potential to make big moves in the senate than schiff does.
I like schiff but he has too much of a history as a hawk for me. He's absolutely going to get the bulk of support because he'll essentially pick right up where Feinstein left off.
I think saying Schiff will continue Feinstein's work is a little unfair to him.
He's voted for every military action we've been in in the last 20 years until it turns into a shitshow and then he apologizes and says he deeply regrets the vote but was working with the information he had at the time.
Yeah porter has a lot more potential to make big moves in the senate than schiff does.
I like schiff but he has too much of a history as a hawk for me. He's absolutely going to get the bulk of support because he'll essentially pick right up where Feinstein left off.
I think saying Schiff will continue Feinstein's work is a little unfair to him.
He's voted for every military action we've been in in the last 20 years until it turns into a shitshow and then he apologizes and says he deeply regrets the vote but was working with the information he had at the time.
At a glance the only evidence I see to support this is his first-term Iraq War vote, a mistake he's hardly alone in making.
I didn't do a ton more digging than you, so maybe I'm wrong, but the other obvious one that came up was Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
It's far to early for me to be shitting on him directly, I just see a lot of the same "incrementalism is the goal" west wing bullshit that I'm really sick of hearing.
Also digging through his Wikipedia this seemed like a silly thing to highlight between Armenian Genocide recognition and Intelligence / Surveillance reform:
Helicopter noise
Beginning with Representative Howard Berman before Berman was voted out, Schiff worked on the Helicopter Noise Relief Act, a measure to reduce unwanted helicopter noise across Los Angeles County by authorizing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to study and regulate it.[43] After reintroducing his legislation, Schiff worked with Senator Dianne Feinstein to push the FAA to act, and together they attached a provision in the 2014 omnibus appropriations package directing the U.S. Secretary of Transportation and the FAA to address helicopter noise in Los Angeles County.[44] As a result, in 2015 the FAA created a countywide helicopter noise public complaint system, the first step toward regulation.
Does someone have a better understanding of what's going on with the DC criminal code stuff that's going on that I see people on Twitter getting mad about? It seems a little convoluted. My understanding is:
DC's city council totally rewrote the criminal code, and then unanimously passed it. Almost all of it is generally good stuff, though there are some thorny issues due to backlogged courts (lowered sentencing, jury trials for certain misdemeanors, second look stuff for young offenders, etc)
DC Mayor Bowser then vetoed it and wants a bunch of the particularly 'light on crime' things stricken.
Council overrode her veto.
But since it's DC, Congress gets a veto as well under the Home Rule Act.
Because of the Home Rule Act, cloture doesn't apply in the Senate, so a simple majority there allows them to veto any new DC legislation, but as that itself is legislation, is subject to presidential veto.
Which brings us to today, and Biden saying he wouldn't veto Congress's veto.
I wouldn't be shocked at all if this is just "old white dude with poor history on criminal laws has another bad stance," but Bowser also vetoed it, and it seems weird that they'd be trying to do a total overhaul of their laws now into an obviously hostile House instead of a year or two ago when even if Manchin had sided with Rs against it, would've still 'passed' the House and failed to get a Congressional veto.
To be clear, the Senate hasn't 'passed' the veto yet, though I'd assume Manchin would side with the Rs on this because he's a butt, and I have no idea what Harris's views here are, but I have no clue.
Is there a reason it doesn't need 60 to even come to a vote, like pretty much everything else?
Home Rule Act of 1973. It establishes that DC gets a mayor, city council, etc, so Congress doesn't need to do all that shit themselves, though there are heavy limitations on what they can pass (eg no taxes on those who work in the district but live outside it). Congress has a veto, but if Congress doesn't act, whatever the DC Council has passed becomes law after I believe 30 days, so it also doesn't need cloture (ie 60 votes).
I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the Mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings.
If the Senate votes to overturn what D.C. Council did – I’ll sign it.
"I support self-determination as long as I like the choices you have determined for yourself," sure is a take.
Does someone have a better understanding of what's going on with the DC criminal code stuff that's going on that I see people on Twitter getting mad about? It seems a little convoluted. My understanding is:
DC's city council totally rewrote the criminal code, and then unanimously passed it. Almost all of it is generally good stuff, though there are some thorny issues due to backlogged courts (lowered sentencing, jury trials for certain misdemeanors, second look stuff for young offenders, etc)
DC Mayor Bowser then vetoed it and wants a bunch of the particularly 'light on crime' things stricken.
Council overrode her veto.
But since it's DC, Congress gets a veto as well under the Home Rule Act.
Because of the Home Rule Act, cloture doesn't apply in the Senate, so a simple majority there allows them to veto any new DC legislation, but as that itself is legislation, is subject to presidential veto.
Which brings us to today, and Biden saying he wouldn't veto Congress's veto.
I wouldn't be shocked at all if this is just "old white dude with poor history on criminal laws has another bad stance," but Bowser also vetoed it, and it seems weird that they'd be trying to do a total overhaul of their laws now into an obviously hostile House instead of a year or two ago when even if Manchin had sided with Rs against it, would've still 'passed' the House and failed to get a Congressional veto.
My first thought here is why is Bowser vetoing in and I bet that's got a lot to do with Biden's stance. Basically, Biden may be backing up Bowser in whatever internal party conflict is going on here.
I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the Mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings.
If the Senate votes to overturn what D.C. Council did – I’ll sign it.
"I support self-determination as long as I like the choices you have determined for yourself," sure is a take.
I enjoy how the thing he wants to highlight is keeping people in the prison/poverty/crime cycle.
I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the Mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings.
If the Senate votes to overturn what D.C. Council did – I’ll sign it.
"I support self-determination as long as I like the choices you have determined for yourself," sure is a take.
DC residents should have thought of this before voting for Biden I guess
The first is retired, has zero first hand knowledge of anything and is a lunatic nutjob who claims Jan 6 was a deep state op using Antifa. His big claim is that one FBI office inappropriately asked another to investigate a tip... and the second didn't. No evidence was provided whatsoever.
The second was placed on leave when he refused to participate in the arrest of a 3-Percenter and now works for a Trump PAC. He also claims that the FBI departed from standard practices... but doesn't specify what those practices are or what they did inappropriately. No evidence again.
And the third claims his security clearance was suspended as retaliation for providing 'protected disclosures' to Republican congressmen, but refuses to produce anything whatsoever substantiating his claim as to why he was suspended, what those disclosures were about, or any steps he's taken to report the supposed retaliation, so Dems are basically going "Uh, so... the fuck are you even claiming?" He has, however, tweeted a lot about how covid vaccine mandates are the same as Nazi Germany, and also refused to take covid tests. So, you know. Totally stable individual.
Oh, and Kash Patel, repeated conspiracy lunatic, is literally paying two of the three to make claims.
I'd be more bothered about it if the Mayor hadn't already veto'd it.
This kind of thing isn't going to change until DC gets statehood so it seems kind of dumb to whine about this fight, when the push for statehood is the fight worth having. I'll worry about whining about Biden when and if he about faces with a veto of an actual statehood bill.
Posts
Goddamn right I am! How is the so-called “left wing” party not going to uncover the secrets of eternal youth and offer it to me, specifically? Just another conservative party in disguise, smh.
In a two-way race I'd be confident he'd win, but in a three-way with Sinema probably running on pure spite I'm rather nervous.
As per usual, the Republicans fuck things up, and the best Democrats can do is return things to normal.
Under Obama, we were on a mostly "week = week" timeframe. Under Trump, we went to a "week = month", occasionally "week = year" timeframe. Biden has managed to get us back to a mostly "week = week" timeframe.
Fucking filibuster, man. Ruins everything.
Iirc there’s 3-way polling with him still on top…there’s two gigantic caveats- the Republican candidate is TBD and polling nearly 2 years out is terrible BUT it confirms the Arizona electorate isn’t fooled by Sinema
Gallego has a ton of name recog as well, partly boosted by the unique situation where his ex-wife is the very popular mayor of Phoenix but kept his name
i know this is a joke, but man is it also true
I believe Manchin will likely end up against the state’s current Republican Governor (Jim Justice). He is most known for his plea to the state during COVID where he told them to “Follow the Fucking Guidelines”. He’s moderate and switched parties a couple of times between Dem and Republican, politically he’s probably even with Manchin in terms of terribleness (he treated COVID pretty seriously considering the state which gained some of my respect he never had previously). I imagine he’d be less of a barrier than Manchin overall except his party affiliation wouldn’t help the Dems hold the majority.
Enough of them move
I'll take a badly written party switcheroo to play out in our favor, if that's what it takes. At this point I have no scruples about how Rs stay out of power.
When will this race be next year?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Its what I figured. I prefer Schiff over Porter, but either would be a good replacement.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net
I like schiff but he has too much of a history as a hawk for me. He's absolutely going to get the bulk of support because he'll essentially pick right up where Feinstein left off.
I'll be mildly annoyed if her running for Senate loses us the seat, since it's a pretty close district
I think a Harvey Rouda-esque candidate makes the seat safer tho, is my point
Porter’s whole thing is gleefully antagonizing essentially “Huntington Beach” with her whiteboard emasculation stuff
Iirc, Catalina Island, of Catalina Wine Mixer fame, is in her district
I think saying Schiff will continue Feinstein's work is a little unfair to him.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah it would be more accurate to say he'll continue her staffers' work
He's voted for every military action we've been in in the last 20 years until it turns into a shitshow and then he apologizes and says he deeply regrets the vote but was working with the information he had at the time.
At a glance the only evidence I see to support this is his first-term Iraq War vote, a mistake he's hardly alone in making.
It's far to early for me to be shitting on him directly, I just see a lot of the same "incrementalism is the goal" west wing bullshit that I'm really sick of hearing.
Also digging through his Wikipedia this seemed like a silly thing to highlight between Armenian Genocide recognition and Intelligence / Surveillance reform:
DC's city council totally rewrote the criminal code, and then unanimously passed it. Almost all of it is generally good stuff, though there are some thorny issues due to backlogged courts (lowered sentencing, jury trials for certain misdemeanors, second look stuff for young offenders, etc)
DC Mayor Bowser then vetoed it and wants a bunch of the particularly 'light on crime' things stricken.
Council overrode her veto.
But since it's DC, Congress gets a veto as well under the Home Rule Act.
Because of the Home Rule Act, cloture doesn't apply in the Senate, so a simple majority there allows them to veto any new DC legislation, but as that itself is legislation, is subject to presidential veto.
Which brings us to today, and Biden saying he wouldn't veto Congress's veto.
I wouldn't be shocked at all if this is just "old white dude with poor history on criminal laws has another bad stance," but Bowser also vetoed it, and it seems weird that they'd be trying to do a total overhaul of their laws now into an obviously hostile House instead of a year or two ago when even if Manchin had sided with Rs against it, would've still 'passed' the House and failed to get a Congressional veto.
Manchin worked with Republicans to get us where we are on this thing, he should be told to jump in the lake when he does this
E: Manchin has already said he sides with Rs here, but they'd still need another vote, or Harris. Biden previously said he opposes overruling DC's changes, but won't veto, or changed his mind.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3877058-manchin-will-vote-against-new-dc-crime-law/
E2: It seems like it's going to get a ton of Dem votes for the veto regardless, but maybe (?) not enough to override a Presidential veto if one happened. Ossoff also doesn't like it and wants Bowser's changes implemented, and claims a bunch of others are also making similar noises.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/02/biden-wont-veto-gop-effort-to-repeal-dc-criminal-code-00085247
Home Rule Act of 1973. It establishes that DC gets a mayor, city council, etc, so Congress doesn't need to do all that shit themselves, though there are heavy limitations on what they can pass (eg no taxes on those who work in the district but live outside it). Congress has a veto, but if Congress doesn't act, whatever the DC Council has passed becomes law after I believe 30 days, so it also doesn't need cloture (ie 60 votes).
"I support self-determination as long as I like the choices you have determined for yourself," sure is a take.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
My first thought here is why is Bowser vetoing in and I bet that's got a lot to do with Biden's stance. Basically, Biden may be backing up Bowser in whatever internal party conflict is going on here.
I enjoy how the thing he wants to highlight is keeping people in the prison/poverty/crime cycle.
DC residents should have thought of this before voting for Biden I guess
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/politics/jim-jordan-whistleblowers-fbi-weaponization/index.html
https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2023-03-02_gop_witnesses_report.pdf
The first is retired, has zero first hand knowledge of anything and is a lunatic nutjob who claims Jan 6 was a deep state op using Antifa. His big claim is that one FBI office inappropriately asked another to investigate a tip... and the second didn't. No evidence was provided whatsoever.
The second was placed on leave when he refused to participate in the arrest of a 3-Percenter and now works for a Trump PAC. He also claims that the FBI departed from standard practices... but doesn't specify what those practices are or what they did inappropriately. No evidence again.
And the third claims his security clearance was suspended as retaliation for providing 'protected disclosures' to Republican congressmen, but refuses to produce anything whatsoever substantiating his claim as to why he was suspended, what those disclosures were about, or any steps he's taken to report the supposed retaliation, so Dems are basically going "Uh, so... the fuck are you even claiming?" He has, however, tweeted a lot about how covid vaccine mandates are the same as Nazi Germany, and also refused to take covid tests. So, you know. Totally stable individual.
Oh, and Kash Patel, repeated conspiracy lunatic, is literally paying two of the three to make claims.
This kind of thing isn't going to change until DC gets statehood so it seems kind of dumb to whine about this fight, when the push for statehood is the fight worth having. I'll worry about whining about Biden when and if he about faces with a veto of an actual statehood bill.