Looks like Joe Biden is facing opposition on his proposed trillion dollar spending spree from someone in his own party named Joe Manchin. I just read about this guy. How have I never heard of him? He doesn't sound like a Democrat at all. I like this guy! He sounds more like a moderate Republican. Did I just find my new favorite politician?
(05-01-2021, 10:12 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like Joe Biden is facing opposition on his proposed trillion dollar spending spree from someone in his own party named Joe Manchin. I just read about this guy. How have I never heard of him? He doesn't sound like a Democrat at all. I like this guy! He sounds more like a moderate Republican. Did I just find my new favorite politician?
That’s a good question. How have you never heard of Joe Manchin? He’s been the linchpin of power in the Senate since the election and is frequently in the news.
(05-01-2021, 10:16 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 10:12 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like Joe Biden is facing opposition on his proposed trillion dollar spending spree from someone in his own party named Joe Manchin. I just read about this guy. How have I never heard of him? He doesn't sound like a Democrat at all. I like this guy! He sounds more like a moderate Republican. Did I just find my new favorite politician?
That’s a good question. How have you never heard of Joe Manchin? He’s been the linchpin of power in the Senate since the election and is frequently in the news.
I was wondering the same.. Manchin is the Mitt Romney of the democratic party.
(05-01-2021, 10:16 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 10:12 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Looks like Joe Biden is facing opposition on his proposed trillion dollar spending spree from someone in his own party named Joe Manchin. I just read about this guy. How have I never heard of him? He doesn't sound like a Democrat at all. I like this guy! He sounds more like a moderate Republican. Did I just find my new favorite politician?
That’s a good question. How have you never heard of Joe Manchin? He’s been the linchpin of power in the Senate since the election and is frequently in the news.
They don't mention him on BBC News, that I can remember. That's the only news I watch, since it's impartial.
(05-01-2021, 10:42 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 10:16 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]That’s a good question. How have you never heard of Joe Manchin? He’s been the linchpin of power in the Senate since the election and is frequently in the news.
They don't mention him on BBC News, that I can remember. That's the only news I watch, since it's impartial.
Yeah, the BBC isn't impartial. And apparently not very informative.
When the Senate is controlled by Democrats, everything is decided by the 50th or 51st most liberal member.
When the Senate is controlled by republicans, everything is decided by the 50th or 51st most conservative member.
Nothing is ever decided by the ideological bomb throwers on the left or the right.
For a little while in 2017, John McCain was the most powerful senator.
Now Joe Manchin is.
Everything goes to the center.
The Senate is one of the few things that we have that still works as the founders designed it. If we could get rid of the filibuster it would work even better.
(05-01-2021, 10:58 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]When the Senate is controlled by Democrats, everything is decided by the 50th or 51st most liberal member.
When the Senate is controlled by republicans, everything is decided by the 50th or 51st most conservative member.
Nothing is ever decided by the ideological bomb throwers on the left or the right.
For a little while in 2017, John McCain was the most powerful senator.
Now Joe Manchin is.
Everything goes to the center.
The Senate is one of the few things that we have that still works as the founders designed it. If we could get rid of the filibuster it would work even better.
The filibuster is a safe haven against radicals who think like you.
(05-01-2021, 10:58 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 10:42 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]They don't mention him on BBC News, that I can remember. That's the only news I watch, since it's impartial.
Yeah, the BBC isn't impartial. And apparently not very informative.
At least it's not full of mis-information and lies, telling me how bad the Democrats are or how bad the Republicans are. I'm sick of that crap.
(05-01-2021, 11:18 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 10:58 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]When the Senate is controlled by Democrats, everything is decided by the 50th or 51st most liberal member.
When the Senate is controlled by republicans, everything is decided by the 50th or 51st most conservative member.
Nothing is ever decided by the ideological bomb throwers on the left or the right.
For a little while in 2017, John McCain was the most powerful senator.
Now Joe Manchin is.
Everything goes to the center.
The Senate is one of the few things that we have that still works as the founders designed it. If we could get rid of the filibuster it would work even better.
The filibuster is a safe haven against radicals who think like you.
This country has gone through radical changes many times already. The filibuster didn't stop it.
All the filibuster does is change the math in certain situations. Instead of the 50th or 51st senator having so much power, in some situations it is the 60th. When the incentive structure is such that the 60th senator would rather get something done rather than nothing, the filibuster works. When the incentive structure lines up so that nothing is preferable to something, the filibuster does not work.
Now that the different partisans in America are no longer watching the same news and believing the same facts, the incentive structures are not there, and the time for the filibuster has ended.
(05-01-2021, 11:21 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 10:58 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, the BBC isn't impartial. And apparently not very informative.
At least it's not full of mis-information and lies, telling me how bad the Democrats are or how bad the Republicans are. I'm sick of that crap.
I just watched a piece on the MI6 has been working with Reuters and the BBC to insert journalists who's primary goal was creating a regime change in Russia. So, yeah... hard to find any news that isn't being shaped by something these days.
(05-01-2021, 11:21 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 10:58 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, the BBC isn't impartial. And apparently not very informative.
At least it's not full of mis-information and lies, telling me how bad the Democrats are or how bad the Republicans are. I'm sick of that crap.
Like you, years ago I thought the BBC was impartial. But after watching them for a while I realized that rather than misinformation, they control their narrative through omission. They intentionally left out glaring facts that I knew to be true.
They are most definitely anti-gun, anti-Trump, and somewhat anti-American. If a story can be shaped to paint the U.S. in a bad light (unless it involves leftist causes/politicians/pundits) you can be guaranteed they’ll leave certain important details out of the story to achieve that goal.
(05-01-2021, 02:11 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 11:21 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]At least it's not full of mis-information and lies, telling me how bad the Democrats are or how bad the Republicans are. I'm sick of that crap.
Like you, years ago I thought the BBC was impartial. But after watching them for a while I realized that rather than misinformation, they control their narrative through omission. They intentionally left out glaring facts that I knew to be true.
They are most definitely anti-gun, anti-Trump, and somewhat anti-American. If a story can be shaped to paint the U.S. in a bad light (unless it involves leftist causes/politicians/pundits) you can be guaranteed they’ll leave certain important details out of the story to achieve that goal.
That's one of the things I like about them.
As far as being anti-gun and anti-American, I just don't see it. It sounds to me like you are referring to CNN.
(05-01-2021, 10:58 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]When the Senate is controlled by Democrats, everything is decided by the 50th or 51st most liberal member.
When the Senate is controlled by republicans, everything is decided by the 50th or 51st most conservative member.
Nothing is ever decided by the ideological bomb throwers on the left or the right.
For a little while in 2017, John McCain was the most powerful senator.
Now Joe Manchin is.
Everything goes to the center.
The Senate is one of the few things that we have that still works as the founders designed it. If we could get rid of the filibuster it would work even better.
Actually, senators should not be selected by a popular vote. Senators should be selected by State Legislature. Senators are supposed to represent the state, not the people.
The intent for the House of Representatives is to represent the people, hence why their numbers are determined by the census.
The filibuster is a great tool to stop a misguided party such as yours (democrat) from pushing through legislation that is clearly not wanted by the majority of citizens and/or states.
(05-01-2021, 05:01 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 10:58 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]When the Senate is controlled by Democrats, everything is decided by the 50th or 51st most liberal member.
When the Senate is controlled by republicans, everything is decided by the 50th or 51st most conservative member.
Nothing is ever decided by the ideological bomb throwers on the left or the right.
For a little while in 2017, John McCain was the most powerful senator.
Now Joe Manchin is.
Everything goes to the center.
The Senate is one of the few things that we have that still works as the founders designed it. If we could get rid of the filibuster it would work even better.
Actually, senators should not be selected by a popular vote. Senators should be selected by State Legislature. Senators are supposed to represent the state, not the people.
Yes, that's true, the founders originally empowered the state legislatures to select senators.
They also empowered the state legislatures to change the Constitution, and the state legislatures decided to give away that power of selecting senators, because everyone agreed that that aspect was not working well.
You think you're a conservative but you're not. You're a reactionary. A conservative lives with the decisions of the past. A conservative trusts the folks that made those decisions, and trusts that they would have made the same choices had they been in power at the time. A reactionary is always trying to revisit and relitigate the past.
(05-01-2021, 05:01 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 10:58 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]When the Senate is controlled by Democrats, everything is decided by the 50th or 51st most liberal member.
When the Senate is controlled by republicans, everything is decided by the 50th or 51st most conservative member.
Nothing is ever decided by the ideological bomb throwers on the left or the right.
For a little while in 2017, John McCain was the most powerful senator.
Now Joe Manchin is.
Everything goes to the center.
The Senate is one of the few things that we have that still works as the founders designed it. If we could get rid of the filibuster it would work even better.
The filibuster is a great tool to stop a misguided party such as yours (democrat) from pushing through legislation that is clearly not wanted by the majority of ... states.
A majority of 100 is 51.
The filibuster requires 60.
If there is something that the citizens of 29 out of 50 states want, that is a majority of states, but it may not be enough to get 60 senators and break a filibuster.
Pro tip, binary boy, check your math next time you make a numerical claim. Spock frowns on your shenanigans.
And before you assume I'm saying this just because I'm supposedly a liberal, I've thought the filibuster should end since Bush was president
(05-01-2021, 06:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 05:01 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, senators should not be selected by a popular vote. Senators should be selected by State Legislature. Senators are supposed to represent the state, not the people.
Yes, that's true, the founders originally empowered the state legislatures to select senators.
They also empowered the state legislatures to change the Constitution, and the state legislatures decided to give away that power of selecting senators, because everyone agreed that that aspect was not working well.
You think you're a conservative but you're not. You're a reactionary. A conservative lives with the decisions of the past. A conservative trusts the folks that made those decisions, and trusts that they would have made the same choices had they been in power at the time. A reactionary is always trying to revisit and relitigate the past.
(05-01-2021, 05:01 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]The filibuster is a great tool to stop a misguided party such as yours (democrat) from pushing through legislation that is clearly not wanted by the majority of ... states.
A majority of 100 is 51.
The filibuster requires 60.
If there is something that the citizens of 29 out of 50 states want, that is a majority of states, but it may not be enough to get 60 senators and break a filibuster.
Pro tip, binary boy, check your math next time you make a numerical claim. Spock frowns on your shenanigans.
And before you assume I'm saying this just because I'm supposedly a liberal, I've thought the filibuster should end since Bush was president
The problem with ending the filibuster and making it easier to pass legislation is that it also makes it easier to repeal legislation. So if one party gets major legislation passed with 51 votes, and then loses just two seats, the other party comes in and repeals everything the first party did. We'd go swinging wildly back and forth with no predictability as to what our national policy is and businesses would be crippled when they are unable to plan for the future because major legislation that affects them keeps swinging wildly back and forth.
What the filibuster does with its 60 vote requirement is ensure that if legislation is passed, it is likely to remain in place for the future. That is very important.
(05-02-2021, 06:43 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 06:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, that's true, the founders originally empowered the state legislatures to select senators.
They also empowered the state legislatures to change the Constitution, and the state legislatures decided to give away that power of selecting senators, because everyone agreed that that aspect was not working well.
You think you're a conservative but you're not. You're a reactionary. A conservative lives with the decisions of the past. A conservative trusts the folks that made those decisions, and trusts that they would have made the same choices had they been in power at the time. A reactionary is always trying to revisit and relitigate the past.
A majority of 100 is 51.
The filibuster requires 60.
If there is something that the citizens of 29 out of 50 states want, that is a majority of states, but it may not be enough to get 60 senators and break a filibuster.
Pro tip, binary boy, check your math next time you make a numerical claim. Spock frowns on your shenanigans.
And before you assume I'm saying this just because I'm supposedly a liberal, I've thought the filibuster should end since Bush was president
The problem with ending the filibuster and making it easier to pass legislation is that it also makes it easier to repeal legislation. So if one party gets major legislation passed with 51 votes, and then loses just two seats, the other party comes in and repeals everything the first party did. We'd go swinging wildly back and forth with no predictability as to what our national policy is and businesses would be crippled when they are unable to plan for the future because major legislation that affects them keeps swinging wildly back and forth.
What the filibuster does with its 60 vote requirement is ensure that if legislation is passed, it is likely to remain in place for the future. That is very important.
2017 showed us that you can effectively repeal legislation with just 51 votes already. They disguised their Obamacare repeal as a budget resolution and the Senate parliamentarian allowed it. The Senate almost got there to repeal Obamacare, but did not have the will to actually do it.
I think this concern is overstated because to repeal something you would not only need 51 dedicated Senators but you need to change the White House too. I think that's sufficiently difficult.
The democrats blame Trump for what's happening at the border, yet the claim there is no crisis.
Bad messaging.
Why the hell are we elevating these criminals who are killed by cops just because they're black? Why are we being told we must "say their name" and remember them?
There is a live stream of Andrew Brown Jr.'s funeral on local NC news sites. The man was a convicted felon and known for resisting arrest. When cops tried to serve a drug-related warrant and a warrant for his arrest he got in his car and was driving away. Police opened fire and he was hit five times, the kill shot being a head shot. Did the man deserve to die? Not my call but he sealed his own fate when he ran. You can only run so many times before your crappy life choices catch up to you - and that's all on you.
Here's an idea to solve these officer related shootings..... STOP. THE. CRIMINAL. BEHAVIOR.