That's fair--some of his moves don't really make sense and aren't justifiable. Just on the whole, it's still a better place to be in than where things looked on January 5.
Oh, opposing Neera Tanden for OMB director. I knew there was something else he did recently that made me mad. Potentially because she called out his daughter, a pharmaceutical exec, for price gouging on Epi pens.
My 8th grade history teacher used to wear a shirt with his face and a 🚫 sign over it, during the Civil War lessons. She stopped when one of his descendents was in her class and cried about it. She was mean, but she wasn't a monster.
EVERY single Democrat, INCLUDING JOE FUCKING MANCHIN AND KRYSTEN FUCKING SINEMA, ought to be out there showing this graph to every news organization in the country and explaining why the $15 is simply NECESSARY.
Then I don't think you understand the arguments you're making. The Byrd Rule has held for nearly 50 years, and both parties have been bound by it. When the Parliamentarian has ruled that a given thing falls outside the Byrd Rule, both parties have abided by the Parliamentarian's rulings. Remember when the Republicans wanted to repeal the whole of the ACA four years ago via reconciliation, but the Parliamentarian (the very same Parliamentarian in fact) wouldn't let them? They didn't overrule her then, just as the Democrats didn't overrule her now.
The Republicans nuclear optioned the 60-vote cloture rule away on SCOTUS appointments in 2017, but let's bear in mind that the Democrats nuclear optioned the 60-vote cloture rule away on non-SCOTUS appointments in 2013 -- and the Republicans justified their 2017 move in part because the Democrats did it first. But beyond that one action which was a tit-for-tat move against the Democrats, the Republicans have violated norms but not rules. (The near evil of the nuclear option is a whole nother discussion.)
Teal deer, we shouldn't make short-sighted demands to get what we want in the moment, we should probably cultivate rules that we can live with on either side. Like, if the 2013 fix hadn't been stupid, and had simply attached penalties to the filibuster's use, it probably would have worked out for us even when the Republicans were in power.
We'll need him again if there is to be a second reconciliation bill to do infrastructure, for example. Fixing up the roads in WV should be in the next package, say...
Agreed. But we still deserve better than “not death cult” of McConnell’s GOP. I get negotiating and sometimes taking moderate positions for ACTUAL GOP votes in a spirit of bipartisanship. But our “own side” making a deal lesser for no GOP gain seems like horrible negotiating.
Except the parliamentarian was overruled before even if it does happen rarely. In 2001, Trent Lott dismissed Robert Dove, the Senate Parliamentarian, after Republicans were angry that Dove, also a Republican appointee, disallowed spending measures as violating the Byrd Rule.
This was both during McConnell’s tenure in Senate and for the exact reason people called for this during this reconciliation.
Doing an action the opposing party has set a precedent is not violating a rule or norm. It actually seems like “fair game.”
That 2001 thing was twenty years ago, though. It is very much the exception and not the norm. And it was seen as such an egregious violation of the norms that Jeffords quit the GOP over it, giving the Democrats a majority.
We're right back to, you think the Democrats should be able to ignore the rules on a whim, and the best justification you've got is that the Republicans did something like that twenty years ago once. At least be forthright about it: just say, in simple direct words, "I think the Democrats should be able to ignore the rules to do good things". If you feel uncomfortable coming right out and saying that, it's because you know it's a bad plan.
If you want it to be painful to use the filibuster, how about making them stand on a pile of hot coals while keep talking about whatever bullshit reasons they want to keep filibustering?
That's fair--some of his moves don't really make sense and aren't justifiable. Just on the whole, it's still a better place to be in than where things looked on January 5.
Oh, opposing Neera Tanden for OMB director. I knew there was something else he did recently that made me mad. Potentially because she called out his daughter, a pharmaceutical exec, for price gouging on Epi pens.
My 8th grade history teacher used to wear a shirt with his face and a 🚫 sign over it, during the Civil War lessons. She stopped when one of his descendents was in her class and cried about it. She was mean, but she wasn't a monster.
EVERY single Democrat, INCLUDING JOE FUCKING MANCHIN AND KRYSTEN FUCKING SINEMA, ought to be out there showing this graph to every news organization in the country and explaining why the $15 is simply NECESSARY.
Or burning them. That's their favorite!
I hate Moscow Mitch a lot more than I hate Joe Manchin.
One can argue that without T**** there would have been no Biden, but without Bernie there would have been no T****.
I'm not convinced that T**** would have won without him.
You call it a coalition, I call it a spoiler.
LeBron for senator in Ohio.
Then I don't think you understand the arguments you're making. The Byrd Rule has held for nearly 50 years, and both parties have been bound by it. When the Parliamentarian has ruled that a given thing falls outside the Byrd Rule, both parties have abided by the Parliamentarian's rulings. Remember when the Republicans wanted to repeal the whole of the ACA four years ago via reconciliation, but the Parliamentarian (the very same Parliamentarian in fact) wouldn't let them? They didn't overrule her then, just as the Democrats didn't overrule her now.
The Republicans nuclear optioned the 60-vote cloture rule away on SCOTUS appointments in 2017, but let's bear in mind that the Democrats nuclear optioned the 60-vote cloture rule away on non-SCOTUS appointments in 2013 -- and the Republicans justified their 2017 move in part because the Democrats did it first. But beyond that one action which was a tit-for-tat move against the Democrats, the Republicans have violated norms but not rules. (The near evil of the nuclear option is a whole nother discussion.)
Teal deer, we shouldn't make short-sighted demands to get what we want in the moment, we should probably cultivate rules that we can live with on either side. Like, if the 2013 fix hadn't been stupid, and had simply attached penalties to the filibuster's use, it probably would have worked out for us even when the Republicans were in power.
We'll need him again if there is to be a second reconciliation bill to do infrastructure, for example. Fixing up the roads in WV should be in the next package, say...
Agreed. But we still deserve better than “not death cult” of McConnell’s GOP. I get negotiating and sometimes taking moderate positions for ACTUAL GOP votes in a spirit of bipartisanship. But our “own side” making a deal lesser for no GOP gain seems like horrible negotiating.
Except the parliamentarian was overruled before even if it does happen rarely. In 2001, Trent Lott dismissed Robert Dove, the Senate Parliamentarian, after Republicans were angry that Dove, also a Republican appointee, disallowed spending measures as violating the Byrd Rule.
This was both during McConnell’s tenure in Senate and for the exact reason people called for this during this reconciliation.
Doing an action the opposing party has set a precedent is not violating a rule or norm. It actually seems like “fair game.”
Both true and correct. But I have room in my heart to hate two people at once.
That 2001 thing was twenty years ago, though. It is very much the exception and not the norm. And it was seen as such an egregious violation of the norms that Jeffords quit the GOP over it, giving the Democrats a majority.
We're right back to, you think the Democrats should be able to ignore the rules on a whim, and the best justification you've got is that the Republicans did something like that twenty years ago once. At least be forthright about it: just say, in simple direct words, "I think the Democrats should be able to ignore the rules to do good things". If you feel uncomfortable coming right out and saying that, it's because you know it's a bad plan.
If you want it to be painful to use the filibuster, how about making them stand on a pile of hot coals while keep talking about whatever bullshit reasons they want to keep filibustering?
Serious question:
If WV's republican governor is begging for more relief, why isn't anyone asking Capito why she voted against it?