Biden Thread

[ReluctantSamurai]

Can't they combine the two and relieve on the floor?

Senators 'relieving' themselves on the floor would make it a rather emphatic way to filibuster a bill.....

[Montmorency]

Buddy, this is called 'calling the previous question' and the Senate does not recognize such a motion. Ending debate and/or time limits is always done by unanimous consent or cloture for debatable motions.
You don't need to speak to instantiate a filibuster. If a party simply refuses to play along with unanimous consent, you get into endless debate time until cloture is invoked. If Merkley had not spoken, McConnell still would have had to wait the 48 hours. He still would have had to invoke cloture!

I am almost certain this is all wrong. If it were true, then cloture would have been universal for all legislation even before the 21st century.

False. Once Schumer decided that the Dems would reject an unanimous consent agreement for the motion to consider Gorsuch, the filibuster was in effect. At that point McCOnnell was forced to introduce the motion, subject to endless debate time unless a future unanimous consent agreement or cloture was presented.

Outright wrong. Senators have prerogatives to recognition and debate. But they must exercise them to put them into effect. If no Democrats exercise their prerogatives, then the majority leader submits a motion (such as a motion to proceed) and it needs only a majority vote. Unanimous consent measures are useful for limiting debate preemptively and by specification. They are not necessary to bring measures from the calendar to the floor.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20668.pdf

"McConnell returned fire by noting that arcane Senate rules are built around consensus and one even “requires unanimous consent to turn the lights on before noon.”" No unanimous consent = cloture required to move forward.
The Senate as an institution is based around everyone needing to agree on something for it to be done. It is precisely the perverse nature of the Senate that by doing nothing nothing gets done. No talking is needed, no fancy motions, you don't even need to be present. As long as one party refuses to agree to a unanimous consent agreement, there is no vote until cloture is successfully invoked or the bill is withdrawn.

Again, what I read indicates this to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. From the link, following the section on unanimous consent:

Alternatively, the majority leader may instead offer a motion that the Senate proceed to
consideration of a measure, particularly if he has been unable to negotiate a unanimous consent
agreement to do so.5 Although this motion requires only a simple majority for approval, in most
parliamentary situations it is debatable. As a result, the motion to proceed is itself susceptible to
extended debate. Accordingly, even before a measure can itself reach the Senate floor, there may
be a filibuster on the question of whether the Senate should consider it at all

Second, if a request for unanimous consent meets objection, the majority leader may instead
attempt to bring the measure up by offering a motion to proceed. Inasmuch as the motion to
proceed is usually debatable, a Senator who wishes not to see the measure reach the floor may
attempt to block its consideration by engaging in or threatening to engage in extended debate of
this motion, a form of filibuster. Holds are given serious consideration by the majority leader
when negotiating the Senate’s floor agenda.

There is no need for unanimous consent to bring a motion to proceed. You have to actually debate to delay the motion to proceed. The reason holds are taken seriously by Senate leadership is that they accept the implication of willingness to debate as a deterrent.


Notably, there remains yet more room for procedural finessing (that I'm surprised Republicans haven't picked up on yet).

Under certain circumstances the motion to proceed is not debatable. In particular, the motion is
non-debatable when offered:
 on a conference report10 or amendments between the houses,
11
 on a measure considered pursuant to a rule-making statute,
12 or
 during the morning hour.13
Although a non-debatable motion to proceed could be made during the morning hour on a wide
variety of measures, it is not a frequent occurrence in modern chamber practice. When the Senate
adjourns it will routinely stipulate by unanimous consent that at the start of the next legislative
day the morning hour be deemed to have expired and, thus, no motion to proceed be in order.
Additionally, a motion made during legislative session to proceed to consider executive calendar
business (described below) is also not debatable.

This is black-letter stuff you are wrong about.

I don't really care for that statement, I think even if McConnell moved for cloture immediately once consideration of the Gorsuch nomination began, it was directly in response to Schumer denying unanimous consent for the purpose of delaying and endlessly debating the issue. From what the guidebook is telling me, time limits on debate and votes can only be done through unanimous consent agreements, cloture, or non-debatable motions like reconciliation. So by denying unanimous consent on a time limit, that seems to be in essence to me a filibuster, right?

See, here's the problem. A "procedural" filibuster is procedural because it is implicit. Because it is implicit the Senate majority has a tendency, in lacking cloture votes, to avoid running into forcing it to be explicit. This should have been your understanding before we even entered the discussion. It has been well know since the Obama era that this is the significance of non-talking filibusters.

Here's an analogy:

A talking filibuster is like punching someone in the face. A procedural filibuster is like warning someone that you will punch them in the face if they cross a line in the sand. Naturally, this line is not often tested unless one is sure about securing cloture, which is like having your buddies restrain the puncher.

If someone warns that they will punch you in the face, and you call t heir bluff, they must either punch or not. If they don't, their effort has failed and that's that. If they do, that's a filibuster in action.

That's what it's about. Punches and threats of punches. Without the action, there is no possibility of making good on the threat, and no way to hinder or injure the other party.

Senator Merkley during the Gorsuch hearings was the Democrats' arm pulling back.

McConnell's cloture petition on Tuesday was in response to the Dem Party's refusal to agree on time limits which seems to be a de facto filibuster, after which the time limit was set for Thursday.

The behavior is logical under predictable circumstances, but if we abstract everything away from typical human behavior then as I keep pointing out the following is a theoretically possible scenario:

1. McConnell fails to secure unanimous consent agreement (though he did on some narrow preceding procedures).
2. McConnell motion to proceed to consider succeeds somehow.
3. Democrats claim an imminent filibuster of the nomination itself.
4. McConnell presides over consideration of the vote to nominate.
5. No Democrat says anything, other than to vote Nay.
6. Republican majority approves the nomination.

Not only did it not delay the votes, it was not even part of nor necessary for the Gorsuch filibuster.

Wrong on both counts, although, to be fair, the second proposition can be correct if and only if some other Democrat invoked their privilege of debate to block motions (in the scenario where McConnell doesn't change the rules).

Because Merkley was fungible, you see. Any Democratic Senator could do what he did. But it was necessary for -a- Democratic Senator to do as he did. Otherwise there is no filibuster; McConnell can bulldoze right through according to preexisting rules.

Since the motion to consider the nomination moved forward with no time limits specified, the Dems did not even need to hold the floor with someone talking.

This is just wrong. The privilege to debate resides. There is no unlimited period for debate, where everyone just sits around quietly with no one talking. The privilege must be exercised.



let me put it to you this way, ACIN. What do you think a talking filibuster of Gorsuch would have looked like, hypothetically, if you do not perceive that there was one in fact?

It's like if someone put a road block in your path, a literal roadblock, but you retorted, 'Ah, but I'll simply take a different route and drive around it! Therefore it's not really a roadblock because you're not delaying my travel. But if you said you were prepared to do it without doing anything, then that would be a roadblock.' Can't you see the contradiction?

[Montmorency]

You'll like this one, ACIN, county-level visualization of presidential elections going back to 1828. Surprisingly, the developers appear to be French.


Another way of delaying Congressional business.

Between the lines: The other 25% of members have either refused to get the vaccine, have not reported getting it at home or are avoiding it because of medical conditions. Until the Office of Attending Physician is clear about this, it can't make recommendations "regarding the modification or relaxation of existing social distancing guidelines."

Congress has its own supply of the coronavirus vaccine. While it's not certain which party is most to blame for any vaccine hesitancy, the phenomenon is higher among white Republicans than any other demographic group, as Axios has reported.
“I won’t be taking it. The survival rate is too high for me to want it,” 25-year-old Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) told Axios in December.
Why it matters: Multiple waves of voting, meant to ensure social distancing inside the House chamber, are slowing a full legislative schedule.

It's also giving power to disrupters like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who's used a procedural move to further drag out the process.
Votes can take more than three times longer than pre-pandemic times.
What they're saying: Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) had a lively debate on the House floor Thursday about reopening.

"Now that we have seen from reports ... that roughly 75% of all members in this House have had a vaccination for COVID-19, there's a strong desire to get back to a regular floor schedule," said Scalise.
"It would be a lot simpler if every member had been vaccinated," Hoyer replied.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's most recent guidelines suggest avoiding "large events and gatherings, when possible."

Stunning disparity.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Shades of Lehman Bros?

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...d-risk-economy

"It isn't just banks that pose a risk to the economy. In 2008, two investment companies, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, failed, triggering the 2008 crash," the senator said during the hearing. As a result, she explained, Congress created FSOC and "gave it the power to designate non-bank firms as 'too big to fail.'"

For perspective, BlackRock oversees a 9 TRILLION dollar portfolio, which is larger than the GDP of every country in the world except for the US and China.

Of course the reaction from BlackRock is predictable:

By contrast, a BlackRock spokesperson told CNBC that "we support financial regulatory reform that increases transparency, protects investors, and facilitates responsible growth," but that the firm shouldn't face the same rules as big banks

Also predictable is the potential for corporate corruption:

BlackRock alumni have accepted or are in line for top jobs in the Biden administration, including Wally Adeyemo, a former senior adviser at the asset manager who the president has picked to be deputy treasury secretary. During his confirmation process, Warren questioned Adeyemo—a longtime ally of hers—but refrained from asking whether FSOC should designate BlackRock. The Senate is expected to soon vote on Adeyemo's nomination.

Vice President Kamala Harris tapped Mike Pyle, BlackRock's former chief investment strategist, to be her top economic adviser and Brian Deese, who was the firm's global head of sustainable investing, leads [President Joe] Biden's National Economic Council.

Even before he took office, Biden faced pressure from progressives to refrain from appointing corporate executives, consultants, or lobbyists to his Cabinet and administration. In response to the president's selection of Deese, Sunrise Movement political director Evan Weber said that "there are many diverse, qualified people that can help Joe Biden and Kamala Harris Build Back Better who didn't choose to work at predatory investment firms. The revolving door between Wall Street and the White House does no good for working people or the planet.

A portion of the Warren interview with Yellen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFSkCGjeMM4

[Hooahguy]

So this is very significant: Senate parliamentarian to let Democrats bypass GOP filibuster on two more bills

The Senate parliamentarian ruled Monday that Democrats can use special budgetary rules to avoid a GOP filibuster on two more pieces of legislation, setting the stage for President Biden's infrastructure agenda to pass in two packages with simple-majority votes.

It's a win for Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) that allows him to pass Biden's $2.25 trillion package by revising the fiscal 2021 Budget Resolution.

Really a great sign for Biden's agenda, even if Manchin is shaky on the 28% tax rate increase (which of course he is).

[Montmorency]

Matt Gaetz, Loyal for Years to Trump, Is Said to Have Sought a Blanket Pardon

Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, was one of President Donald J. Trump’s most vocal allies during his term, publicly pledging loyalty and even signing a letter nominating the president for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In the final weeks of Mr. Trump’s term, Mr. Gaetz sought something in return. He privately asked the White House for blanket pre-emptive pardons for himself and unidentified congressional allies for any crimes they may have committed, according to two people told of the discussions.

Around that time, Mr. Gaetz was also publicly calling for broad pardons from Mr. Trump to thwart what he termed the “bloodlust” of their political opponents. But Justice Department investigators had begun questioning Mr. Gaetz’s associates about his conduct, including whether he had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old that violated sex trafficking laws, in an inquiry that grew out of the case of an indicted associate in Florida.

Christ.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/melissa...rly-180-times/

[edyzmedieval]

Presidential pardons are a weird bunch for continental Europeans like me - the power of a President to pardon whom he wants, no strings attached, is rather odd.

What's stopping a President to pardon someone who committed clear acts of corruption or other crimes, in the interest of a specific person? It's not a very good way of bypassing the judicial branch.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Christ.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/melissa...rly-180-times/

The indicted associate was the former tax collector for my county as well as being a putz.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Presidential pardons are a weird bunch for continental Europeans like me - the power of a President to pardon whom he wants, no strings attached, is rather odd.

What's stopping a President to pardon someone who committed clear acts of corruption or other crimes, in the interest of a specific person? It's not a very good way of bypassing the judicial branch.

Public outcry and the threat of impeachment. It can be argued that such have not been that effective historically. Most presidents have used this power in a reasonably judicious manner.

[Montmorency]

The indicted associate was the former tax collector for my county as well as being a putz.

Thread: The story of how @mattgaetz became a target of the Trump justice department is even crazier and weirder than you can imagine.It involves blockchain, blatant fraud by a local tax collector, and a scheme to steal people’s government ID.This is NOT AN APRIL FOOLS JOKE.

2/ Northeast of Orlando in 2016, Seminole County replaced their tax collector with a 31-year-old friend of @mattgaetz named Joel Greenberg.I know you think you saw corruption in the Trump era, but the things Greenberg is alleged to do will truly blow your mind.

3/ First, he went about blowing $1.9 million dollars in your money hiring the groomsmen from his wedding to work for him.He then spent $384,000 of taxpayer money on body armor, guns, ammo, and a freaking drone.Then he MANDATED that his pals had to wear guns at the office.

4/ Then @mattgaetz’s friend SET UP A BLOCKCHAIN COMPANY inside the taxpayer funded office.A private blockchain company.Then he spent $65,860 of taxpayer money on COMPUTER EQUIPMENT for the private blockchain company.And wait. It gets better.

5/ HE LITERALLY SET THE OFFICE ON FIRE INSTALLING THE EQUIPMENT.Anyway.This is where it gets weird.

6/ Then, Greenberg had an opponent for tax collector. So, he ran a Gamergate style disinformation campaign against him with bots and sock puppets to get him smeared as a white supremacist.Coincidentally, he’s good friends with Roger Stone who has a history of these tactics.

7/ He also started accusing his opponent of rape through sock puppet accounts.This is where the FBI decides to get involved. They trace the IP address to his house and show up to arrest him. And you’ll never believe what they found.

8/ They find three fake IDs in his wallet, and materials to manufacture more in his office. Where did all this come from?Well, as tax collector sometimes people would have to surrender their licenses to him. He would pretend to destroy them, and would turn them into fake IDs.

9/ The is where sex trafficking charges come into the picture.In the midst of this investigation, they find out Greenberg had been using the state database to get information about girls from 14-17 years old.He would target them, and then form “sugar daddy relationships.”

10/ He would literally use the state database to get their photos, their vehicle information.After forming the “sugar daddy” relationship with these girls, he would give them gifts in exchange for “companionship.” Hmmmm. Interpret as you will.

11/ Anyway, the reason he was collecting all those IDs was to give the girls fake identification to traffic them across state lines.He then turned it into an operation for commercial sex acts.

12/ He’s in jail now, thank God. And he was indicted again on these charges yesterday. (Reminder: Innocent until proven guilty. These are allegations.)So, this brings us to @mattgaetz. In the course of investigating Greenberg, Congressman Gaetz came under scrutiny too.

13/ It was reported yesterday that Trump’s attorney general William Barr was so convinced of the credibility of the charges being brought against Matt Gaetz he started dodging any meeting where he would be present.Presumably because Gaetz would pressure him to drop it.

14/ So what did Trump’s Justice Department find on Gaetz? At the center of the investigation was a 17-year-old girl Gaetz had a relationship with. She was reportedly trafficked across state lines.These cases are frequently prosecuted and usually carry aggressive sentencing.

15/ This brings us to Nestor. The bizarre story of the child from Cuba who started living with Gaetz around the age of 12.Gaetz says he is his son, yet no records show he is adopted. It’s a very disturbing overall picture.Anyway. All this was reported by the @orlandosentinel.

16/ The case against Greenberg started with an allegation he was using sock puppets to accuse his opponent of rape. God only knows what they found on Gaetz to make William Barr continue prosecuting this case.

Impressed yet, @Crandar ?

Public outcry and the threat of impeachment. It can be argued that such have not been that effective historically. Most presidents have used this power in a reasonably judicious manner.

Do we entertain any independent argument - no referencing the Federalist papers! - for allowing a head of government or state to retain such a power?

[Crandar]

That was impressive, I'm not going to lie. Coincidentally, we are currently in the midst of a similar scandal, where a pimp, who is also a journalist in the TV channel of an even greater pimp, was found to have illegally obtained 200.000 euros from the Ministry of Social Security, as a compensation for the Covid lockdown. He had also acquired a very heavy police protection (9 vehicles, 14 officers and an armoured BMW limousine), following his claim that he is threatened by a leftist terrorist organisation that has been defunct since 2003.

So, it's not over, there's still a long way to go, if seriously hope to overcome us in the corruption race.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Greenberg, in addition to the charges noted above (which are alleged, but let's just say that I think I could run the prosecution successfully despite having never practiced law or taken a law class), has also gone on Islamophobic pro-maga rants on facebook, has attempted to get out of a speeding ticket by showing them his county tax collector badge, and had once used the lights on his SUV and that same badge to pull over a motorist whom he thought was speeding.

Greenberg "primaried" the incumbent tax collecter, Ray Valdes, to take office.


Not sure if he is an unethical sleazebag with delusions of importance or an out-and-out predator. It is possible that I don't need to choose between the two.

[Pannonian]

That was impressive, I'm not going to lie. Coincidentally, we are currently in the midst of a similar scandal, where a pimp, who is also a journalist in the TV channel of an even greater pimp, was found to have illegally obtained 200.000 euros from the Ministry of Social Security, as a compensation for the Covid lockdown. He had also acquired a very heavy police protection (9 vehicles, 14 officers and an armoured BMW limousine), following his claim that he is threatened by a leftist terrorist organisation that has been defunct since 2003.

So, it's not over, there's still a long way to go, if seriously hope to overcome us in the corruption race.

The NYT reported that the UK government gave around 30 billion GBP to companies related to Tory MPs over covid, which puts your numbers to shame. In US terms that's around 150 billion USD (with the US approximately 5 times the size of the UK).

[Crandar]

Poor little Greece can't embezzle billions (except for cases of military equipment), but we at least distributed quite a few millions among friendly media to "raise awareness for the coronavirus". Some of these media didn't even exist, before the publication of the list...

More to the topic, the story about Russian bounties in Afghanistan is the result of dubious intelligence information, whose value is minimal. Can't say I am surprised, such leaks are a common practice among the military/intelligence establishment, when the executive takes a decision they do not approve of. Regardless of whether someone agrees or not with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, it was shameful how quite a few Democrats and medias seized on this zany rumours to score some cheap gains.

[rory_20_uk]

The NYT reported that the UK government gave around 30 billion GBP to companies related to Tory MPs over covid, which puts your numbers to shame. In US terms that's around 150 billion USD (with the US approximately 5 times the size of the UK).

The Monarchy did nothing about it. The Judiciary did nothing about it. The Opposition did nothing about it. The Civil Service facilitated it.

Why did no one do anything? Self interest in the main. Even the opposition view this as a perck of power that they want to enjoy rather than prevent.

We do try to put a veneer of pomp over what amounts to systemic corruption.

[Montmorency]

The Monarchy did nothing about it. The Judiciary did nothing about it. The Opposition did nothing about it. The Civil Service facilitated it.

Why did no one do anything? Self interest in the main. Even the opposition view this as a perck of power that they want to enjoy rather than prevent.

We do try to put a veneer of pomp over what amounts to systemic corruption.

By what principle, what means, could the monarchy, the judiciary, the opposition, or the civil service do something about it?

Monarchy: ????

Judiciary: Even assuming non-separation between executive and judicial functions (which I don't believe obtains in many places, certainly not the UK), I'm not sure I have heard of a judicial system in a democratic country that goes out of its way to actively investigate and prosecute potential (mundane) crimes.

Opposition: Petition the media to investigate the Tories, who must be up to something shady?

Civil service: I haven't looked into the nature of Pann's complaint so speaking abstractly: much must depend on the legal framework and protocols for bureaucracy and government contracting, but typically there won't be much scope for government (not the UK sense of -G-overnment) to resist assignments that are not facially and overtly illegal. I also think the British, parliamentary, usage of "-G-overnment" overemphasizes the boundary between elected/appointed partisan officials and the structural organs of the state, particularly in terms of partisan alignment between individuals.

[Hooahguy]

Biden formally recognizes the Armenian Genocide.

This is going to really piss off the Turks, but Im glad he did it. Probably not the wisest geopolitical move though.

[Montmorency]

Biden formally recognizes the Armenian Genocide.

This is going to really piss off the Turks, but Im glad he did it. Probably not the wisest geopolitical move though.

Experts Warn Acknowledgement Of Armenian Genocide Risks Drawing U.S. Into WWI

WASHINGTON—Urging national leaders to “tread carefully,” top experts from the Council on Foreign Relations warned Thursday that acknowledging the Armenian genocide could risk drawing the U.S. into WWI. “The mass killings of the Armenian people was a tragedy, but we fear acknowledging the ethnic cleansing of one million Armenians now would only provoke the Ottoman Empire,” said Steven A. Cook, who added that recognizing the brutal mass murder of Armenians could also upset the delicately balanced alliance system created by Otto von Bismarck. “Nothing is more important than American neutrality. President Biden was elected on a platform of neutrality, after all. The U.S. has successfully avoided entering the European conflict for over a century, and we don’t want a conflict with the sultan and his allies now.” At press time, the Senate had passed a resolution declaring war on Germany.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The USA and Turkey are being "icily correct" and have been for a while now. Erdogan's Islamism and Turkish reticence to allow US forces to operate actively from NATO bases in Turkey have not built any "closeness" of late.

Plans for Turkey to stand up some of the more recent weapons systems as part of NATO are in limbo at the moment, for example.

I don't think a recognition of historical fact will worsen things all that much.

[Montmorency]

Giving D.C. full representation in the House and Senate is such a far-fetched, left-wing pipe dream that in 1978 it had the support of Barry Goldwater, Howard Baker, Bob Dole and Strom Thurmond, as well as the endorsement of the entire Republican Party in its 1976 platform.

Yeah, but in that era there were bipartisan consensus on crazy notions like abolishing the Electoral College.


Super tweet, btw.

I'm no political strategist, but for Rs to be spending all their time reading Dr. Seuss and haranguing people to boycott baseball games while a broad Dem center-left coalition passes ambitious solutions to big public problems with 70% support behind them is an odd strategy

prediction: it will work out just fine for the GOP
there is actually no cosmic law that says culture war issues will be superseded by Real Kitchen Table Policy in voters' brains, liberals just like telling themselves they understand the real, structural, economic root of politics because they spent too much time in grad seminars[...] here's an alternative theory: what if politics can be organized around anything, any idea, any issue, if you obsess over that issue enough, and there isn't some set of topics or concerns that are more fundamental than others and will magically win you elections

Further:

I’ve dwelled a lot here on the political power of culture war, and the myopia of viewing politics as akin to designing a menu of tasty policy dishes: Group affinity, tribal allegiance, shared values—these things drive politics because people desperately want to build fulfilling lives, and there’s more to contentment than a fair minimum-wage law and affordable health care. (Man shall not live by legal weed alone, or whatever.)

Democrats often miss this. They spend a lot of time trying to puzzle out why their candidates lose on tickets where their policy objectives pass by referenda overwhelmingly, but to me it just tells the culture story all over again. If voters think they can get much of what they want out of government through ballot initiative, they can vote without complication for candidates who appeal to their lizard brains, and only one party truly excels at this. Unfortunately, it's the Republican Party.

I think this—the propulsive force of tribalism, not the specific way it manifests in America today—would be part of political life under any imaginable scenario (you can’t escape human nature, etc etc) and as a result, I’d like to see Democrats press their advantages on cultural issues wherever they find them.

[Montmorency]

Speculation is ongoing as to whether Trump's attempts to manipulate the census cost Latino-heavy states such as Arizona, Texas, and Florida. OTOH, California and New York overshot their estimates (though that overshot may not capture emigration in the second half of the year (which itself may or may not have even happened)). Wonder if we'll ever find out.

At any rate, California lost a seat in the House for the first time in history, Florida exceeded New York's population (and representation) for the first time in history.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

State 2020 Estimate 2020 Actual Difference %age
Arizona 7,421,401 7,158,923 -262,478 -3.5%
Texas 29,360,759 29,183,290 -177,469 -0.6%
Florida 21,733,312 21,570,527 -162,785 -0.7%
N Carolina 10,600,823 10,453,948 -146,875 -1.4%
S Carolina 5,218,040 5,124,712 -93,328 -1.8%
Nevada 3,138,259 3,108,462 -29,797 -0.9%
Colorado 5,807,719 5,782,171 -25,548 -0.4%
Oklahoma 3,980,783 3,963,516 -17,267 -0.4%
Arkansas 3,030,522 3,013,756 -16,766 -0.6%
S Dakota 892,717 887,770 -4,947 -0.6%
Wyoming 582,328 577,719 -4,609 -0.8%
Mississippi 2,966,786 2,963,914 -2,872 -0.1%
Oregon 4,241,507 4,241,500 -7 0.0%
Delaware 986,809 990,837 4,028 0.4%
Montana 1,080,577 1,085,407 4,830 0.4%
Alaska 731,158 736,081 4,923 0.7%
Missouri 6,151,548 6,160,281 8,733 0.1%
West Virginia 1,784,787 1,795,045 10,258 0.6%
New Hampshire 1,366,275 1,379,089 12,814 0.9%
Maine 1,350,141 1,363,582 13,441 1.0%
New Mexico 2,106,319 2,120,220 13,901 0.7%
N Dakota 765,309 779,702 14,393 1.9%
Idaho 1,826,913 1,841,377 14,464 0.8%
Georgia 10,710,017 10,725,274 15,257 0.1%
Louisiana 4,645,318 4,661,468 16,150 0.3%
Vermont 623,347 643,503 20,156 3.2%
Washington 7,693,612 7,715,946 22,334 0.3%
Utah 3,249,879 3,275,252 25,373 0.8%
Nebraska 1,937,552 1,963,333 25,781 1.3%
Kansas 2,913,805 2,940,865 27,060 0.9%
Iowa 3,163,561 3,192,406 28,845 0.9%
Tennessee 6,886,834 6,916,897 30,063 0.4%
Kentucky 4,477,251 4,509,342 32,091 0.7%
Indiana 6,754,953 6,790,280 35,327 0.5%
Rhode Island 1,057,125 1,098,163 41,038 3.9%
Connecticut 3,557,006 3,608,298 51,292 1.4%
Minnesota 5,657,342 5,709,752 52,410 0.9%
Hawaii 1,407,006 1,460,137 53,131 3.8%
Virginia 8,590,563 8,654,542 63,979 0.7%
Wisconsin 5,832,655 5,897,473 64,818 1.1%
Alabama 4,921,532 5,030,053 108,521 2.2%
Ohio 11,693,217 11,808,848 115,631 1.0%
Michigan 9,966,555 10,084,442 117,887 1.2%
Maryland 6,055,802 6,185,278 129,476 2.1%
Massachusetts 6,893,574 7,033,469 139,895 2.0%
California 39,368,078 39,576,757 208,679 0.5%
Pennsylvania 12,783,254 13,011,844 228,590 1.8%
Illinois 12,587,530 12,822,739 235,209 1.9%
New Jersey 8,882,371 9,294,493 412,122 4.6%
New York 19,336,776 20,215,751 878,975 4.5%

[Montmorency]

Ted Cruz had a pretty laughable op-ed in the WSJ recently, expanding on the recent adversarial rhetorical (and only rhetorical) posture that Republicans have adopted against corporations:

This is the point in the drama when Republicans usually shrug their shoulders, call these companies “job creators,” and start to cut their taxes. Not this time.

This time, we won’t look the other way on Coca-Cola’s $12 billion in back taxes owed. This time, when Major League Baseball lobbies to preserve its multibillion-dollar antitrust exception, we’ll say no thank you. This time, when Boeing asks for billions in corporate welfare, we’ll simply let the Export-Import Bank expire.

For too long, woke CEOs have been fair-weather friends to the Republican Party: They like us until the left’s digital pitchforks come out. Then they run away. Or they mouth off on legislation they don’t understand—and hurt the reputations of patriotic leaders protecting our elections and expanding the right to vote. Enough is enough. Corporations that flagrantly misrepresent efforts to protect our elections need to be called out, singled out and cut off.

In my nine years in the Senate, I’ve received $2.6 million in contributions from corporate political-action committees. Starting today, I no longer accept money from any corporate PAC. I urge my GOP colleagues at all levels to do the same.

For too long, Republicans have allowed the left and their big-business allies to attack our values with no response. We’ve allowed them to ship jobs overseas, attack gun rights, and destroy our energy companies. We’ve let them smear Republicans without paying any price.

As America’s greatest basketball player observed years ago, Republicans buy sneakers, too. We cast votes, too. And we pay attention when CEOs come after our own just so they can look good for a few editorial pages and radical activists.

To them I say: When the time comes that you need help with a tax break or a regulatory change, I hope the Democrats take your calls, because we may not. Starting today, we won’t take your money either.

In other words, 'we've been the ultimate natural-born corporate cronies, but if you do things we dislike instead of quietly exploiting the nation while funding us, we might think about criticizing you.' Note, btw, that the fetish around corporate PACs is meaningless - on either side - because current permissive jurisprudence allows effectively unlimited political spending through a variety of vehicles.

Meanwhile, McConnell reassures donors:

But McConnell rebuked any suggestions of hypocrisy Tuesday, clarifying his original statements and carving out an exception for political contributions.

"I'm not talking about political contributions," McConnell said during a stop at a Kentucky health clinic Tuesday. "I'm talking about taking a position on a highly incendiary issue like this and punishing a community or a state because you don't like a particular law they passed. I just think it's stupid."

If this alleged Facebook post were representative, maybe the only path to persuading conservative voters for the Democratic Party would be to convince them that socialism will hurt the spooks and spics and femiNazis.

We need to return the ownership of these huge corporations to everyday folks, the people who do the work. It's the only way to stop their socialist agenda.

[Montmorency]

If this alleged Facebook post were representative, maybe the only path to persuading conservative voters for the Democratic Party would be to convince them that socialism will hurt the spooks and spics and femiNazis.

Next up, gay conversion camps where the coaches suck boys' dicks straight and tatted counselors with buzz cuts and studded boots punish wayward girls with Hitachi wands.

[ReluctantSamurai]

President Biden in Louisiana...very cool. Now he needs to take this show to West Virginia, Arizona, and other states with conservative Dems:

https://apnews.com/article/louisiana...3e1c332e36ddb9

While Biden intends to finace his proposal with higher corporate taxes, the GOP wants to finance their proposal (which is 1/4 the size) by regressive taxes:

He’s proposing to pay for his plan by undoing the 2017 tax cuts signed into law by President Donald Trump and raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. Biden contends his programs would bolster the middle class and make the country stronger than tax cuts for big companies and CEOs.

Several GOP senators favor spending $568 billion on infrastructure over five years, a small fraction of what the Democratic president has proposed — a sign of how difficult a deal might be.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said that Republicans would rather finance infrastructure through user fees such as tolls and gasoline taxes, though he declined to specify which fees he would back.

To put Sen Manchin's BS about "bi-partisan" legislation in the spotlight, Mitch McConnell has this to say:

McConnell has also said that “100%” of his focus was “on stopping this new administration,” echoing similarly obstructionist threats he made during President Barack Obama’s term and underscoring the challenge Biden faces in trying to work across the aisle.

Not a big fan of Chris Cuomo, but he drilled Manchin during this recent interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuoR_nn_e_A

Manchin is absolutely full of shit....

[Montmorency]

More to the topic, the story about Russian bounties in Afghanistan is the result of dubious intelligence information, whose value is minimal. Can't say I am surprised, such leaks are a common practice among the military/intelligence establishment, when the executive takes a decision they do not approve of. Regardless of whether someone agrees or not with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, it was shameful how quite a few Democrats and medias seized on this zany rumours to score some cheap gains.

Looks like you veered too far in the other extreme.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Whether there were bounties or not, or just the rumor of same, the story served its purpose.

[spmetla]

The scandal was less that there were or were not bounties but that Trump wouldn't really take Putin to task on it. The attitude of 'hey we do bad things too' was less than acceptable. It was just another example of the moral vacuum in leadership we had.

[Montmorency]

The scandal was less that there were or were not bounties but that Trump wouldn't really take Putin to task on it. The attitude of 'hey we do bad things too' was less than acceptable. It was just another example of the moral vacuum in leadership we had.

It depends on how you choose to frame it.

Do we have good evidence that Russia has been materially supporting the Taliban and encouraging them to undermine the US negotiating position? Yes.

Has Russia been paying the Taliban to assassinate specific American soldiers? Probably not (though that would make a satisfactory action movie premise).

[rory_20_uk]

It depends on how you choose to frame it.

Do we have good evidence that Russia has been materially supporting the Taliban and encouraging them to undermine the US negotiating position? Yes.

Has Russia been paying the Taliban to assassinate specific American soldiers? Probably not (though that would make a satisfactory action movie premise).

The USA gives money to Israel, Pakistan and Egypt (amongst others). Is the USA to be held accountable for their actions?

If China had decided to occupy Guatemala because the president they had supported invited them in I imagine the USA at the very least would be providing some material aid. Given they are to Ukraine.

The USA needs to try seeing things from the perspective of others as opposed to acting in indignation that others view their military overreach is not viewed in a positive light.

[Montmorency]

For the posterity of those non-Americans who haven't noticed, the Republican Party as an institution has conclusively committed to rejecting unfavorable electoral outcomes as presumptively illegitimate.

Remember what it's about.

The USA gives money to Israel, Pakistan and Egypt (amongst others). Is the USA to be held accountable for their actions?

Yes. Who said otherwise?