Jump to content

The Democratic Party

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 549
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Fastbreak
Fastbreak

Monday morning there should be a bill presented called something fuzzy like “save the children” or “every child matters” In the bill it should have: Free pre-natal care 6 weeks of paid time off for

Hank Scorpio
Hank Scorpio

The coup is about to begin. Allah be praised.       

softlynow
softlynow

On the one hand, the electorate isn't progressive enough for the aggressive pols we need. On the other, the centrist Dems who can win are suffering PTSD from decades of getting shellacked anytime they

Posted Images

burntorangebongos

burntorangebongos 10710

Posted
Posted (edited)

What Schumer said was that they could use Budget Reconciliation for the Covid bill.   And something about Broadening it so that it might effectively end the filibuster without saying that it is ended. I don't understand this inside baseball shit but Manchin and Sinema didn't clarify what they mean.

If Mitch stays this contentious, those two Senators might alter their stance especially if Schumer throws some peach committee appointments at them and other boons for their states.  

Edited by burntorangebongos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85318

Posted
Posted (edited)

They said they don’t want to end it. It can be altered.  Go back to talking filibusters.  Nuke it for statehood bills. Etc. 

Mitch dropped the demand it be in writing. Which, as we know, doesn’t matter. You can be on tv and the internet saying you would never confirm a SCOTUS judge during an election year and then change your mind and suffer no consequences. 

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85318

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Alright.  Now we need to kill the filibuster.  Cause that ain't happening with it in place.

Like we did for federal judiciary nominees under Reid, we can nuke part of the filibuster.  We could nuke it for statehood bills only and require 51 for DC and PR.  The Republicans can't rescind statehood and who would they even admit as states if/when they re-take the Senate?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DonkeyCigars

DonkeyCigars 144

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Like we did for federal judiciary nominees under Reid, we can nuke part of the filibuster.  We could nuke it for statehood bills only and require 51 for DC and PR.  The Republicans can't rescind statehood and who would they even admit as states if/when they re-take the Senate?  

You'd maybe get people clamoring to break up Texas? I know it sounds crazy, but think about everything we've seen the last 4-6 years. You think it's a bridge (and campaign position) too far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85318

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

You'd maybe get people clamoring to break up Texas? I know it sounds crazy, but think about everything we've seen the last 4-6 years. You think it's a bridge (and campaign position) too far?

I don't think it would seriously happen, if it could.  Texas would lose so much power breaking into 5 states and you'd effectively have to gerrymander the state into 5 districts, which is nearly impossible to do without giving Houston/Dallas/CenTex their own state/Senators/electoral votes that vote Dem.

There's not enough rural and East Texas regions to offset the big 4 cities statewide - there are not enough to turn Texas into 5 red states. 

Basically, they'd be creating a North Dakota (NW Texas/Panhandle) and 2 more Illinois (2 states dominated by Houston and DFW).  

 

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

I suspect we will here more about Texas Secession. Also, we will here about bottom-feeder states like [addition--Arkansas], Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas trying to get Texas to bring them along. It will be just like conference realignment.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders would be fighting with Ted and the rest to govern that country. Think about that for a minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85318

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

I suspect we will here more about Texas Secession. Also, we will here about bottom-feeder states like Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas trying to get Texas to bring them along. It will be just like conference realignment.

I think Texas would secede before it broke up into 5 states and destroyed its power, both politically and economically.  Greg Abbott and the RPT will not allow Houston, Dallas and Austin to have outsized control by giving them their own power when they can keep the blue cities under the thumb of West/East Texas due to gerrymandering in the state house/Senate and easy paths to Republican control of the statewide offices. 

Whatever state formed by NW Texas/Panhandle would be as much of a loser leech state as Mississippi, with less black people.  A state with Amarillo or Midland or Odessa as its capital would be so, so terrible. 

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

You really don't like politics.

Who does?  But seriously, this alteration isn’t that bad.  Would have been cooler if they extended the period and kept it at $400.  It is irritating that Dems are negotiating themselves rightward unnecessarily.  I once again fault the institution of the Senate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18856

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Who does?  But seriously, this alteration isn’t that bad.  Would have been cooler if they extended the period and kept it at $400.  It is irritating that Dems are negotiating themselves rightward unnecessarily.  I once again fault the institution of the Senate. 

Votes are a tricky thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85318

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Democrats: They're Bad, Folks

The Daily Poster on Twitter: "These 8 Democrats just voted NO on a $15 minimum wage: @Sen_JoeManchin @SenatorSinema @SenatorTester @SenatorShaheen @SenatorHassan @SenatorCarper @SenCoonsOffice @SenAngusKing" / Twitter

 

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

I'd ask if you're both doing this unintentionally, but you're both being disingenuous as fuck.  Also it was Dave Sirota's org, so I don't expect it to be accurately portrayed - gotta get the Twitter hearts.

They did not vote NO on a $15 minimum wage.

They voted no on overriding the Byrd Rule for the wage increase after the Parliamentarian said it doesn't fit in reconciliation. 

Totally different votes.  But keep out #outraging.

 

By the way, Sinema said she wants an actual debate and amendment process for the $15 wage and not attaching minimum wage increase to the COVID reconciliation bill.  Aka, legislating. 

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17855

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 

I'd ask if you're both doing this unintentionally, but you're both being disingenuous as fuck.  Also it was Dave Sirota's org, so I don't expect it to be accurately portrayed - gotta get the Twitter hearts.

They did not vote NO on a $15 minimum wage.

They voted no on overriding the Byrd Rule for the wage increase after the Parliamentarian said it doesn't fit in reconciliation. 

Totally different votes.  But keep out #outraging.

 

By the way, Sinema said she wants an actual debate and amendment process for the $15 wage and not attaching minimum wage increase to the COVID reconciliation bill.  Aka, legislating. 

Do you think the Dems will successfully pass a $15 minimum wage sometime in the next 2 years? I don't. Hope I'm wrong.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13195

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 

I'd ask if you're both doing this unintentionally, but you're both being disingenuous as fuck.  Also it was Dave Sirota's org, so I don't expect it to be accurately portrayed - gotta get the Twitter hearts.

They did not vote NO on a $15 minimum wage.

They voted no on overriding the Byrd Rule for the wage increase after the Parliamentarian said it doesn't fit in reconciliation. 

Totally different votes.  But keep out #outraging.

 

By the way, Sinema said she wants an actual debate and amendment process for the $15 wage and not attaching minimum wage increase to the COVID reconciliation bill.  Aka, legislating. 

Just a deeply humiliating post on a personal level. Imagine working this hard to carry water for these awful, awful clowns.

And not even paid for it.

Jesus.

The "Aka, legislating." part... wow

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85318

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Do you think the Dems will successfully pass a $15 minimum wage sometime in the next 2 years? I don't. Hope I'm wrong.

No. I think they’ll end up at 11 or 12

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13195

Posted
Posted

Dems, serious and smart: "We have to respect the Byrd rule and the Senate parliamentarian!"

me, an idiot: "So no minimum wage hike?"

Dems, wise and resolute: "I would love to have a debate about it in a REAL legislative process."

me, a stupid moron:  "So you'll reform or abolish the filibuster in order to make sure that happens when the Republicans attempt to stop debate and voting?"

Dems, pragmatic and noble: "Of course not, silly."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13226

Posted
Posted

So far the Democrats have Democrat'ed this thing up big time. We needed the $15 dollar minimum wage along with the Pandemic relief package passed on day 1. It is like they are begging to hand power back to the Republicans. I am starting to lose hope guys. Get this shit done. There are so many other important pieces of business that need to be handled as well.

I am not surprised, just disappointed.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13226

Posted
Posted
Just now, bad_teammate said:

Dems, serious and smart: "We have to respect the Byrd rule and the Senate parliamentarian!"

me, an idiot: "So no minimum wage hike?"

Dems, wise and resolute: "I would love to have a debate about it in a REAL legislative process."

me, a stupid moron:  "So you'll reform or abolish the filibuster in order to make sure that happens when the Republicans attempt to stop debate and voting?"

Dems, pragmatic and noble: "Of course not, silly."

I am ready for the filibuster to go. I am not interested in saving the voters from themselves if they keep putting the Republicans in power. Let those Republicans actually do their horrible business. It is what they were elected to do.

Likewise when we are in power I have no interest in giving the Democrats more excuses to not do anything, they only get into power about once a decade anyway. I am sure the government actually passing needed reforms once a decade won't kill anybody.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13226

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Dem leadership can’t do anything to make Manchin and Sinema vote the way they don’t want to vote. 

Yeah right. Those guys are being used to justify inaction. Both could be easily bought or strong-armed if the powers that be wanted.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...