So Filibuster..... help me out here.

Nice!

Super Anarchist
4,453
1,235
Victoria, BC
Nah, I don't think so - re the Russian angle.  Poots would have far more to gain by having this stuff pass that 1) bleeds the American treasury dry with yet another lifetime of entitlements. but more importantly 2) having these huge bills pass that are so divisive along such narrow lines - especially if the filibuster is removed - actually is a win in his column because it would give grist to the haters to have something concrete for decades to hold onto.
Disagree. Pooty doesn't want Americans to have voting rights. That makes America more (quite?) likely to continue down the road to fascism. Fascism makes America weaker, makes NATO weaker, and gives Pooty more opportunity to do the things he wants (like take back Ukraine) without opposition.

 

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
8,116
1,353
BTW - what is up with sinema??  What is she gaining in all of this obstruction?  I can sort see why Manchin is doing what he's doing, especially back on the infrastructure bill.  But what's her play in that and the current filibuster issue?  Is it a power play?  Is she just parroting manchin to got more concessions from the party?  
Honestly?

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/kyrsten-sinema/industries?cid=N00033983&cycle=2022&type=C

I think that tells the tale of Sinema.  Her major base is retirees, lawyers, and bankers.  In other words, old rich people who live in Arizona.  The truth is that Sinema DID vote to bypass the filibuster for the debt ceiling vote.  So it's not a 'general' principle.  That being said, I think issues like gun control and immigration are at the top of her 'flammable topics list'.

The 'break the filibuster' proponents have already talked about doing away with it so they can pass voter reform, and gun reform, and immigration reform, and climate reform, and ...

Yea.. there's a lot of people who don't actually WANT all those things.  In states like Arizona, constituents - particularly old rich ones - may even LIKE things the way they are.

Arizona isn't that liberal.  its KIND of liberal on some topics, but not on all topics, particularly guns and immigration.  For example (https://www.findlaw.com/state/arizona-law/arizona-gun-control-laws.html) "Arizona gun control laws are among the least restrictive in the United States. Arizona law states that any person 21 years or older, who is not a prohibited possessor, may carry a weapon openly or concealed without the need for a license."  Sinema would much rather 'stand her ground' against voting rights in a state that actually seems to like tightening voting requirements than deal with gun issues. (pun intended).

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
Nah, I don't think so - re the Russian angle.  Poots would have far more to gain by having this stuff pass that 1) bleeds the American treasury dry with yet another lifetime of entitlements. but more importantly 2) having these huge bills pass that are so divisive along such narrow lines - especially if the filibuster is removed - actually is a win in his column because it would give grist to the haters to have something concrete for decades to hold onto.

Occam's razor - I think the simple answer is she, like many service providers, just sold herself to the highest bidder.  It's the oldest profession.  Whore's come in all shapes, sizes and genders.  And in this case, the John's paid for and got a tag team duo.  
  In a way. Both WV and Arizona are borderline purple at best, leaning red. These days the term "Democrats" is seen as "Blacks! OMFG!!", and Arizona was the last state in the union to approve MLK Day as a holiday. Money is an advantage but not universally the determining factor, not by a long shot. Money buys ads but FOX News is free. The elections can't simply be bought, so IMO the two Senators are looking to maintain their political careers more than fishing for money. 

 

Ncik

Super Anarchist
2,185
397
well they can, but then they'd be personally and collectively committing political suicide! ain't that a bitch, lol...
Would they really?

In my mind, the very squeaky wheels are a very small minority of bigots and racists that are controlling the questioners and focus groups behind a lot of politicians decision making. And politicians are fearful of going against these groups. Political science has gone haywire. Politicians are a commodity to be marketed and sold every 2,3,4 years. The focus groups don't actually represent the voters.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nice!

Super Anarchist
4,453
1,235
Victoria, BC
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/kyrsten-sinema/industries?cid=N00033983&cycle=2022&type=C

I think that tells the tale of Sinema.  Her major base is retirees, lawyers, and bankers.  In other words, old rich people who live in Arizona.  The truth is that Sinema DID vote to bypass the filibuster for the debt ceiling vote.  So it's not a 'general' principle.  That being said, I think issues like gun control and immigration are at the top of her 'flammable topics list'.
Except it's looking to turn out the opposite of that:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/donors-threaten-cut-funding-sinema-527413


Top donors threaten to cut off funding to Sinema


The donors said they will support a primary challenge, and demanded that the senator refund their contributions.

 

3to1

Super Anarchist
Would they really?

In my mind, the very squeaky wheels are a very small minority of bigots and racists that are controlling the questioners and focus groups behind a lot of politicians decision making. And politicians are fearful of going against these groups. Political science has gone haywire. Politicians are a commodity to be marketed and sold every 2,3,4 years.
I'm not sure I clearly understand what you're saying. but yes, straightforward national voting rights are toxic to right-wing political interests all across this grate cuntry. it's now 'cheat' to survive.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
8,116
1,353
Except it's looking to turn out the opposite of that:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/donors-threaten-cut-funding-sinema-527413


Top donors threaten to cut off funding to Sinema


The donors said they will support a primary challenge, and demanded that the senator refund their contributions.
I read that article when I was looking at her funding.  I appreciate their passion but there's an AWFUL lot of weasel words in that article.

"70 Democratic donors — some of whom gave Sinema’s 2018 campaign the maximum contribution allowed by law" -   Ok, what's the maximum contribution?  (https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-announces-2021-2022-campaign-cycle-contribution-limits/) says individual limits are $2K for a senator.   It also says they're counting money given to the Democratic election campaigns in general - some of which was certainly redirected.

Sinema has raised over $30 million dollars in 10 years.  Some of those PACs in the article have certainly given her money - $50K from the League of Conservation Voters for example.  Good luck getting that money back. 

I think that article is performative.  We'll bookmark it and see if they live up to their threats when she's up for re-election in 3 more years.

 

Ncik

Super Anarchist
2,185
397
I'm not sure I clearly understand what you're saying.
I am saying that I think the political focus groups used to determine the public opinions (not private ones) and voting decisions of politicians are being distorted by a very small minority of people that have one, or more, of a number of goals:

  • Power for powers sake, at any cost to the public. They are literally deciding the political messages of all politicians that can afford them.
  • Fascist leanings.
  • Racist leanings.
  • Other, non-freedom loving for all, persuasions.
  • Financial gain.
  • Other

The people that control these focus groups will not stand for election themselves on such platforms.

Alternatively, it may just be that political focus groups naturally tend to stray towards the extremes by their very nature.

All this is to say that I don't think a politician with a moral back-bone will actually lose votes if they can argue their case clearly and succinctly. Clearing a path through the stream of shit deliberately generated by those at the extremes is probably the hardest part of being a modern, moral politician though. There's nothing marketable in the centre...except maybe peace...when enough people want it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ncik

Super Anarchist
2,185
397
How would doubling down on voting rights go down with the populous? Add in compulsory voting to the existing voting rights bill, maybe drop something contentious from the existing bill as a show of compromise.

 

AJ Oliver

Super Anarchist
12,894
1,806
Sandusky Sailing Club
How would doubling down on voting right
Actual gummints that give a fig about popular participation . . 

work hard to make it easy to register to vote. 

Why is that so darn hard ?????????

Generally speaking, Canada has a system of universal voter registration.  The Canadian government has largely taken on the onus of registering its citizens to vote as a means of protecting their constitutional right.  It does so by capturing the information needed to register voters when citizens interact with various branches and agencies of the Canadian government. Although no system is perfect and invariably someone will slip between the cracks, , , ,

 

Ishmael

54,103
13,376
Fuctifino
How would doubling down on voting rights go down with the populous? Add in compulsory voting to the existing voting rights bill, maybe drop something contentious from the existing bill as a show of compromise.
"populace"

Just trying to help here.

 

AJ Oliver

Super Anarchist
12,894
1,806
Sandusky Sailing Club
It's a rule for a club of honorable people, and it seemed to the Senators in the early 20th century that anything that was obviously true and fair would surely get at least 2/3rds of a club of honorable wise men to agree to it. However it's a rule which, in a club of partisan hacks, can be abused. The Senate was assumed to be for people who would not put their personal self-interests and party loyalty above the interest of the nation. Once upon a time it was, for the most part.    
Respectfully disagree . . . for decades the ol' white guys in the Senate did indeed use the filibuster judiciously . . . 

they carefully reserved its use only to stomp all over rights of black Americans. 

If that is "honorable", I want do know what dishonorable is. 

That is just one more reason why we need critical race theory across the curriculum. 

That is it for today class.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
45,426
10,207
Eastern NC
Lazy man’s filibuster is 60 vote cloture. Want to filibuster? Get up and talk. Convince others to take your position. Be persuasive.
It's lazier than that. They don't talk any more, they just notify their caucus chair of an intention to filibuster and the rest of the Senate agrees to pretend you are really doing it.

- DSK

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,764
2,196
Back to the desert
Honestly?

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/kyrsten-sinema/industries?cid=N00033983&cycle=2022&type=C

I think that tells the tale of Sinema.  Her major base is retirees, lawyers, and bankers.  In other words, old rich people who live in Arizona.  The truth is that Sinema DID vote to bypass the filibuster for the debt ceiling vote.  So it's not a 'general' principle.  That being said, I think issues like gun control and immigration are at the top of her 'flammable topics list'.

The 'break the filibuster' proponents have already talked about doing away with it so they can pass voter reform, and gun reform, and immigration reform, and climate reform, and ...

Yea.. there's a lot of people who don't actually WANT all those things.  In states like Arizona, constituents - particularly old rich ones - may even LIKE things the way they are.

Arizona isn't that liberal.  its KIND of liberal on some topics, but not on all topics, particularly guns and immigration.  For example (https://www.findlaw.com/state/arizona-law/arizona-gun-control-laws.html) "Arizona gun control laws are among the least restrictive in the United States. Arizona law states that any person 21 years or older, who is not a prohibited possessor, may carry a weapon openly or concealed without the need for a license."  Sinema would much rather 'stand her ground' against voting rights in a state that actually seems to like tightening voting requirements than deal with gun issues. (pun intended).
Fair.

 




Top