Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 115: Pardon the Interruption

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

I think you're falling into a bit of a language trap here.

"Masculinity" means male traits in the sense that we've ASSIGNED them to men, not necessarily that they ARE male traits.

Our perception of being a good father is different than our perception of being a good mother, even though gender doesn't really matter to either one.

oh ok. yeah, if it's defined like that i would say positive masculinity does exist.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/politics/wp/2017/07/25/senators-on-hot-mic-trump-is-crazy-im-worried/

“Did you see the one who challenged me to a duel?” Collins asks.

“I know,” Reed replies. “Trust me. Do you know why he challenged you to a duel? ‘Cause you could beat the s— out of him.”

“Well, he’s huge,” Collins replies. “And he — I don’t mean to be unkind, but he’s so unattractive it’s unbelievable.”

This is extraordinary. "He's so unattractive it's unbelievable," is also getting worked into my daily language.

Oh my god
<3 Susan Collins
---

I really wish he hadn't voted for the MTP, but McCain's speech was really good:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/25/full-text-john-mccains-senate-floor-speech/509799001/

Hopefully some people take it to heart.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I really wish he hadn't voted for the MTP, but McCain's speech was really good:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/25/full-text-john-mccains-senate-floor-speech/509799001/

Hopefully some people take it to heart.

He called for a return to Senate regular practice immediately after voting to proceed on a bill that was written completely outside the bounds of Senate regular practice. He's a goddamn hypocrite.
---

all mccains maverick shit comes down to is towing the line with reservations

hes a hack oligarch servant of capital and the idea hes any different is all a marketing gimmick

Not_an_Owl posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

I really wish he hadn't voted for the MTP, but McCain's speech was really good:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/25/full-text-john-mccains-senate-floor-speech/509799001/

Hopefully some people take it to heart.

He called for a return to Senate regular practice immediately after voting to proceed on a bill that was written completely outside the bounds of Senate regular practice. He's a goddamn hypocrite.

Reminder that McCain literally said that anybody who voted to remove the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees was a "stupid idiot" before turning around and voting for that himself.
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

I really wish he hadn't voted for the MTP, but McCain's speech was really good:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/25/full-text-john-mccains-senate-floor-speech/509799001/

Hopefully some people take it to heart.

He called for a return to Senate regular practice immediately after voting to proceed on a bill that was written completely outside the bounds of Senate regular practice. He's a goddamn hypocrite.

^^^^^
---

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/889933016792940544
https://twitter.com/JonWalkerDC/status/889939489551900672

Eh. There's a very real chance that he votes for whatever monstrosity Mitch comes up with and I'll have some egg on my face for not being sufficiently cynical, but I'm gonna reserve my judgment until we see how he votes in the end.
---

I will nearly guarantee that McCain will toe the party line in the end. He's no different from the rest

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/889934574133948416

Quite a major generational & cultural divide in how the media covered that McCain speech. https://t.co/C0kQsSFs8R https://t.co/Tc3juFZzIW

McCain Punditry Mini-Rant

Part of why McCain does what he does: There’s a generational and philosophical divide in how he’s covered by the press.

Among younger and less traditional reporters on Twitter — especially on the left but by no means exclusively so — a lot of people arepointing out McCain’s inconsistencyin scolding McConnell’s process but nevertheless voting for the motion to proceed.

On CNN, however, the commentary about McCain’s speech was glowing. And the commentary has also been very warm in Twitter comments we’ve seen from older reporters at the major news networks and at newspapers like The Washington Post.

---

McCain is one of the most deceptive, dishonest senators we've got and it's frankly incredible that people keep falling for his horseshit.
---

I guess I'm a little lost again

Is voting for a Motion to Proceed on a bill that's close to passing an unusual move?
---

It's not normally an unusual thing

The difference this time is that the bill to which they're proceeding is unknown to everybody but McConnell, and whatever it is it hasn't gone through the normal committee process with expert testimony etc, and several key provisions are probably in violation of the Byrd Rule. But don't worry, it only completely remakes 1/6th of the economy and likely costs tens of millions of people their insurance!

But yeah, if it was a "normal" bill I believe it's typical to vote for the MTP on your party's bills even if you plan to vote against them.
---

SupremeZero posted...

Regaro posted...

SupremeZero posted...

Also, apparently they can't win already even if McConnell goes nuclear.

https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/889927489333678080

Plus the two no votes to MtP, that's 3.

So why didn't he just vote no on the mtp?

Because they can negotiate changes to the bill, which is probably what he wants.

Supposedly they are doing an open process on the bill now - which i think is meant to get at the arguments that the bill was written in secret.

The bill as written is not up for a vote yet - McCain apparently wants to just start the whole process over but this process has to fail and fail honestly for that to happen.
---

cnn literally has the same side-by-side image of trump and sessions in three different places on their home page. Don't think I've ever seen something like that before.
---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/889929412539543552

Trump seems to think this vote is for the bill?
---

he's either assuming everyone who voted yes today will vote yes no matter what later

or he has no idea how congress works
---

McCain voting to fuck with healthcare while at the same time receiving healthcare is probably the most all-encompansing moment of the current GOP I've seen in a long time. Fuck him.
---

FFDragon posted...

he's either assuming everyone who voted yes today will vote yes no matter what later

or he has no idea how congress works

Probably both?
---

Masculinity and femininity are traits that are socially associated with either gender. Having these distinctions is sexist, but that doesn't mean the traits themselves are bad.

Women can absolutely lift weights, enjoy sports, be more fatherlike than motherlike, and so much more. They don't stop being women, but these activities, interests, and traits are considered masculine. Women can also be misogynistic, look down on all things feminine, and bully men for failing to be an archetype of masculinity. So, even women can demonstrate toxic masculinity.

There's also positive and toxic femininity, but my brain is tired of thinking now so I'll have to leave that for someone who's a bit more experienced in those matters.

The important thing to remember is that masculine and feminine are words, not hard rules of the universe.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

I think you're falling into a bit of a language trap here.

"Masculinity" means male traits in the sense that we've ASSIGNED them to men, not necessarily that they ARE male traits.

Our perception of being a good father is different than our perception of being a good mother, even though gender doesn't really matter to either one.

oh ok. yeah, if it's defined like that i would say positive masculinity does exist.

This is a fair way to look at it, but i will say im pretty sure people want to change so that they arent assigned to men. Which just kinda means its another layer to peel back if anything. Never the less, i appreciate the good discussion by you two.
---

Ugh

I just got a fundraising email from Tom Perez saying that the GOP had succeeded and that it was only a matter of time before a bill was on Trump's desk.

Now I don't really give a shit about them trying to fundraise, but I AM very annoyed by the implication that this is a done deal when it's now more important than ever that these Senators hear the full fury of their constituents. Every person this email convinces that it's now pointless to call their Senator makes this thing slightly more likely to pass.
---

I mean, that's the point isn't it? Republicans banking on the common people being dumb?
---

Let's spend a second trying to puzzle out McCain's position. He:
1) Wants to improve/fix/whatever-verb-you-want Obamacare
2) Knows that, if he does nothing, Trump will do everything in his power to cause Obamacare to enter a death spiral
3) Knows that, if the MtP failed, nothing was going to get done on the matter for years
4) With the vote at a tie, knows he's in a strong negotiating position (as, admittedly, every wavering vote is -- but that's a separate argument -- regardless, he has the power to scuttle things at will, if he wants).

Given all that, the "contradiction" erodes away pretty quickly.

People are putting too much emotion into what is simply a procedural matter.
---

I have no idea why people are still optimistic about them not being able to get a bill passed.

They're going to.

Hell, the entire political climate since 2015 when Donald Trump announced his candidacy can be summed up as "there's no way this awful thing will happen" and yet it keeps moving forward.

They'll give some extra money to help states like Nevada and Arizona to pacify Heller and McCain on Medicaid. Maybe even turn one of the two other senators that voted no on the MTP. Tell Rand Paul to fuck off and he'll probably vote for it anyway because he has no real spine when he's forced to take a real stand.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

I have no idea why people are still optimistic about them not being able to get a bill passed.

They're going to.

Hell, the entire political climate since 2015 when Donald Trump announced his candidacy can be summed up as "there's no way this awful thing will happen" and yet it keeps moving forward.

They'll give some extra money to help states like Nevada and Arizona to pacify Heller and McCain on Medicaid. Maybe even turn one of the two other senators that voted no on the MTP. Tell Rand Paul to fuck off and he'll probably vote for it anyway because he has no real spine when he's forced to take a real stand.

Er, if that's the case, why has it not already happened.

Meanwhile, short of fucking up basically everything, they literally can't because they now need 60 votes to pass it anyway.

This is not "No way this is going to happen, that's absurd". That's what it was several months ago. Now we've seen them fuck it up over and over, and also the goal posts have been moved beyond possible reach.
---

I wouldn't be surprised if they cut all the 60 vote parts and moved with the 50 vote package.

Which is miserable all on it's own, but if Trump is demanding a win and the GOP does its whole fall in line thing, it's still very possible.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

I have no idea why people are still optimistic about them not being able to get a bill passed.

They're going to.

Hell, the entire political climate since 2015 when Donald Trump announced his candidacy can be summed up as "there's no way this awful thing will happen" and yet it keeps moving forward.

They'll give some extra money to help states like Nevada and Arizona to pacify Heller and McCain on Medicaid. Maybe even turn one of the two other senators that voted no on the MTP. Tell Rand Paul to fuck off and he'll probably vote for it anyway because he has no real spine when he's forced to take a real stand.

I'm not optimistic; I think it's more likely than not that Mitch gets something through. I just think it's not a done deal, and people collectively resigning themselves to it happening would increase the odds that it does.
---

A few more things have been Byrd'd:
https://twitter.com/RebeccaShabad/status/889945158720028674
---

SupremeZero posted...

Er, if that's the case, why has it not already happened.

Because it takes time to twist all these people's arms.
---

-FFDragon- posted...

I wouldn't be surprised if they cut all the 60 vote parts and moved with the 50 vote package.

Which is miserable all on it's own, but if Trump is demanding a win and the GOP does its whole fall in line thing, it's still very possible.

To be honest, the big problem with that is the far right. They LOVE that shit that's blocked from 50 vote options. Rand Paul refused the bill as is, dump the extra shit and they'll probably go berserk.

I think they might pass some sort of skeleton, but anything actually significant in any way seems like it'd be hard.
---

Fun fact: Russian Sanctions Bill passes house 419-3.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

SupremeZero posted...

Er, if that's the case, why has it not already happened.

Because it takes time to twist all these people's arms.

And they're going to do it in a couple weeks more as opposed to about 10 months now?
---

So what happens if they vote on this bill before it gets checked and they pass it with 50, but later it comes out that half of it actually needed 60 votes?

Is the whole thing stricken or piece by piece?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Fun fact: Russian Sanctions Bill passes house 419-3.

Is one of the 3 Dana Rohrabacher?
---

-FFDragon- posted...

I wouldn't be surprised if they cut all the 60 vote parts and moved with the 50 vote package.

Which is miserable all on it's own, but if Trump is demanding a win and the GOP does its whole fall in line thing, it's still very possible.

The only possible wrench in the works is that whatever the Senate comes up with then has to pass the House, which requires the Tea Party signing on. Which is not necessarily impossible, but considering how hard it was for the House to get something done the first time it's going to require quite the bill and a lot of wheeling and dealing.
---

-FFDragon- posted...

So what happens if they vote on this bill before it gets checked and they pass it with 50, but later it comes out that half of it actually needed 60 votes?

Is the whole thing stricken or piece by piece?

The 60 vote requirement is just to close debate. If they actually vote on the bill itself, I don't think there's any procedural mechanism that can undo a final vote taken by the Senate. The time to filibuster is before the vote.
---

-FFDragon- posted...

So what happens if they vote on this bill before it gets checked and they pass it with 50, but later it comes out that half of it actually needed 60 votes?

Is the whole thing stricken or piece by piece?

Most of the things that would be in the bill have already been checked though

Senate Parliamentarian: "I thought I told you that defunding Planned Parenthood for a year took 60 votes!"

Mitch McConnell: "You did, that's why we voted to defund it for 2 years."
---

If it comes down to it, they can overrule the Senate parliamentarian with 50 votes plus the VP.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If it comes down to it, they can overrule the Senate parliamentarian with 50 votes plus the VP.

This is technically correct, but it'll cause a shitstorm on their own side.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If it comes down to it, they can overrule the Senate parliamentarian with 50 votes plus the VP.

I will laugh very, very hard when some measure comes down to this and McCain is one of the yea votes.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If it comes down to it, they can overrule the Senate parliamentarian with 50 votes plus the VP.

If it came down to it, could they just decide that a bill passes with 20 votes?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

If it comes down to it, they can overrule the Senate parliamentarian with 50 votes plus the VP.

If it came down to it, could they just decide that a bill passes with 20 votes?

No, because they need 50+1 to approve the rule.
---

Says who?
---

SupremeZero posted...

-FFDragon- posted...

I wouldn't be surprised if they cut all the 60 vote parts and moved with the 50 vote package.

Which is miserable all on it's own, but if Trump is demanding a win and the GOP does its whole fall in line thing, it's still very possible.

To be honest, the big problem with that is the far right. They LOVE that shit that's blocked from 50 vote options. Rand Paul refused the bill as is, dump the extra shit and they'll probably go berserk.

I think they might pass some sort of skeleton, but anything actually significant in any way seems like it'd be hard.

Theyve been talking for a while about a possible skinny repeal which repeals the mandate, cuts some of the taxes and maybe adds that weird tax incentive/punishment thing in place of subsidies. Which is apparently the only thing collins has at any point said yes to.
---

However, from my understanding, they could theoretically pass a bill with 26 yes votes if 49 senators were absent. It would pass 26-25, a majority of those present, the minimum quorum of 51.

Incidentally, 50 senators can block the bill from passing by not being present in the Senate. The VP doesn't come into play because there's no tie to break, it's a 50-0 vote that fails for lack of a quorum.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Says who?

The Constitution. And common sense. What would happen if 20 senators just declared that the Senate passed something? How could they matter more than the other 80 who said it didn't pass?
---

That's a dangerous play though, if even one of those 50 shows up, that plan fails
---

I also wonder what happens if the 50 there just pretend there's a quorum and proceed. There's no one to demand a quorum call procedurally as none of the other 50 dare show up. But the Constitution is clear that 51 is required.

Would the Supreme Court find the law wasn't actually passed if it got that far?
---