American Politics

[M3J]

The student debt thing is specially jarring considering this is something Biden could take immediate action on AFAIK. I am going to guess that this is something Biden doesn't give two shits about but will come into play conveniently close to the midterms as democrat poll numbers continue to tank.

The thing is though, at this point, I don't think anything but wiping out at least 75% of the debt for each person will help the Dems in the midterms. There have been too much abandonment and too many broken promises that they actually have to do a lot to get motivate the left to go out and vote, especially in areas where republicans play dirty.

Biden and most other Dems made it obvious they're not that much different from the Republicans, and that they care more about businesses than people, even if socially, they're tad bit better. All that said though, I'm really hoping the Dems win the midterms, as I'd rather have them in power over the Reps.

 

[kkck]

It depends, really. Nothing wrong with talking about a movie or films in general, but it's when you brag about something illegal or dumb that's the problem.

Yea, and it doesn't help that IG influencers seem to be living the good life and don't show how hard it actually is to be an influencer. People probably think it's way too easy.

That feels like a bit of a tangent from my point.

It being difficult is not problematic to me. To me the core of the issue is that "being famous" is not a job or a career. Fame shouldn't be seen as synonymous with success. Sure, some careers can benefit from fame but at least in those cases fame functions in favor of an actual career rather than the career serving in function of the fame. People with actual careers who become famous usually speak of fame as being the worst part of their job. Heck, this being hard I would argue makes this even worst.

 

[M3J]

That feels like a bit of a tangent from my point.

It being difficult is not problematic to me. To me the core of the issue is that "being famous" is not a job or a career. Fame shouldn't be seen as synonymous with success. Sure, some careers can benefit from fame but at least in those cases fame functions in favor of an actual career rather than the career serving in function of the fame. People with actual careers who become famous usually speak of fame as being the worst part of their job. Heck, this being hard I would argue makes this even worst.

Oh it was, then.

Yeah, problem is though, a lot of people who haven't been famous or know much about fame think it's all sunshine and opens doors for them, as well as the money they can make. But I think that's also a PoV thing, because some people will see fame as a sign of success.

 

[xi0]

Libs really are braindead

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 12, 2022, Original Post Date: Jan 12, 2022 ---

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 12, 2022 ---

"Guys, Biden-Harris are unpopular, how can we fix this? Have him dump the minority VP for Dick Cheney's insane daughter? Have the terrible candidate that lost to Donald Trump once run against him again?"

 

[kkck]

ffs, at least pick people who are on opposite sides of the aisle lol. The bipartisan corporate hack is a terrible duo to fix democracy with...

 

[M3J]

Why I don't trust Libs anymore

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

You guys still thought there were two 'sides' in Washington?

 

[kkck]

I need clarification on something, what does the senate filibuster encompass? Isn't the filibuster just tactics to delay and prevent votes on a bill? Or in the case of the senate does this include also the number of votes required to pass a bill?

 

[xi0]

I need clarification on something, what does the senate filibuster encompass? Isn't the filibuster just tactics to delay and prevent votes on a bill? Or in the case of the senate does this include also the number of votes required to pass a bill?

It's not about number of votes to pass a bill, that's 51. The issue is breaking the filibuster which requires 60 votes, which as a requirement was introduced completely accidentally. Same with the concept of the filibuster in the first place... lol

 

[kkck]

It's not about number of votes to pass a bill, that's 51. The issue is breaking the filibuster which requires 60 votes, which as a requirement was introduced completely accidentally. Same with the concept of the filibuster in the first place... lol

As in, to get past someone stalling a bill you need 60 votes at which point you get to vote on a bill? I thought the senate generally required 60 votes to pass a bill. Except in cases where the nuclear option was used.

 

[xi0]

As in, to get past someone stalling a bill you need 60 votes at which point you get to vote on a bill? I thought the senate generally required 60 votes to pass a bill. Except in cases where the nuclear option was used.

No, the majority of bills just require a simple majority, that's why Dems "control" the Senate, since Harris can break the 50-50 tie. It's also why Manchin and Sinema have pissed off a lot of people by not being in lockstep with Biden.

 

[M3J]

Why is Sinema blocking Dems so much?

 

[xi0]

Like Manchin she's a Democrat in a Red/Purple state. When it comes to Manchin and what he supposedly stands for it's a bit more obvious, with Sinema not so much.

 

[kkck]

No, the majority of bills just require a simple majority, that's why Dems "control" the Senate, since Harris can break the 50-50 tie. It's also why Manchin and Sinema have pissed off a lot of people by not being in lockstep with Biden.

Ah, I see. though I am still under the impression that a majority of bills requiring a simple majority is the result of the nuclear option being over the years. Gonna read up on that... Since it is the actual point of the senate to build consensus and whatnot.

That said, being clear on how the filibuster in this case operates... You need 60 votes just to end debate on a bill which in reality needs 50 votes to pass... I mean, that's obviously absurd right? No reasonable person can argue this is to further debate on anything, this is just an overtly corrupt excuse to give senators a pass on their votes for bills going on the record.

 

[xi0]

Ah, I see. though I am still under the impression that a majority of bills requiring a simple majority is the result of the nuclear option being over the years. Gonna read up on that... Since it is the actual point of the senate to build consensus and whatnot.

That said, being clear on how the filibuster in this case operates... You need 60 votes just to end debate on a bill which in reality needs 50 votes to pass... I mean, that's obviously absurd right? No reasonable person can argue this is to further debate on anything, this is just an overtly corrupt excuse to give senators a pass on their votes for bills going on the record.

Oh right, yeah. I think it might be more relevant now in more recent history. There's also the whole reconciliation process that ignores the need for 60 votes too iirc.

Yeah, I think it's the crux of the argument for ending it. Especially since filibustering can be written now and doesn't even require someone to be on the Senate floor. At least when southern Democrats were filibustering civil rights legislation back in the 60s they had enough conviction to camp out on the Senate floor.

 

[M3J]

Like Manchin she's a Democrat in a Red/Purple state. When it comes to Manchin and what he supposedly stands for it's a bit more obvious, with Sinema not so much.

seems like she's a Rep in disguise

 

[xi0]

seems like she's a Rep in disguise

Not sure what that even means. She at least had a progressive record at some point or another, but that hasn't really played out in the Senate. She claims to be "listening to Arizonans" in her decision making but she hasn't held a single townhall as a Senator. It's just a play to maintain office IMO. With Manchin you always knew he was a coal-stooge, who while in a similar situation doesn't even like being referred to as a "liberal". He's probably more of what you're talking about.

 

[M3J]

Not sure what that even means. She at least had a progressive record at some point or another, but that hasn't really played out in the Senate. She claims to be "listening to Arizonans" in her decision making but she hasn't held a single townhall as a Senator. It's just a play to maintain office IMO. With Manchin you always knew he was a coal-stooge, who while in a similar situation doesn't even like being referred to as a "liberal". He's probably more of what you're talking about.

She's a Republican pretending to be Democrat, similar to how BLoomberg changed from being a Republican to Democrat because he thought that'd help him? Or did he change from Dem to Rep before running as Dem again? I mean, could have pretended to be progressive?

 

[xi0]

She's a Republican pretending to be Democrat, similar to how BLoomberg changed from being a Republican to Democrat because he thought that'd help him? Or did he change from Dem to Rep before running as Dem again? I mean, could have pretended to be progressive?

Bloomberg is a billionaire that could join the Satanist party and he'd still have support. It's not an honest comparison.

 

[ninjabot]

President Biden renewing push for federal voting rights in Georgia

WASHINGTON (AP) – The White House says President Joe Biden will renew his push for federal voting rights legislation in a speech next week in Georgia. Georgia is among states with new laws li…

www.wjbf.com

They want to limit the amount of places Georgians can vote in Lincoln County from 7 down to 1.

Anybody that doesn't think this is a clear attempt at voter suppression want to explain to me how? Georgia is a battleground state as well. Many places have eliminated Sunday voting as well, as the Black community often votes en masse with their churches. This is happening in Arizona, Florida, and Texas too.

Plans to close all but one polling place in a rural Georgia county reverberate through a battleground state

Voting rights activists are closely monitoring takeovers of local election boards in a state that helped decide the presidency and control of the Senate in 2020.

www.cnn.com