The Johnson - Schumer Congress Thread

[Captain N]

Y'all really out here trying to both sides things like equality under the law or "fascism is bad, actually", huh?

SpaghettiMonk right now:

[unfilteredJW]

SpaghettiMonk right now:

I mean that poster said we needed to “wait and see more information” about a homeless mentally disabled black man get choked out for 15 minutes to make a call on who was in the wrong.

Edit: Assume by the deleted reply you realize just how reprehensible your position was @SpaghettiMonk.

[Captain N]

I mean that poster said we needed to “wait and see more information” about a homeless mentally disabled black man get choked out for 15 minutes to make a call on who was in the wrong.

And we know exactly how he feels about poor people based on his constant attacks on inner city schools in previous threads. I mean it would be better if these bigots just came right out with their bullshit. I mean it's pretty clear to everyone else here.

[Endus]

Sanders got 43% of the vote in the presidential primaries while claiming to be a socialist and advocating for free college and healthcare. That's a pretty interesting result in 2016.

In that the USA is still incredibly regressive for a modern, developed nation, perhaps.

Every other developed nation on the planet has universal healthcare, to the point that it isn't a political football any more (the need for some form, at least). A lot of those nations also subsidize college pretty significantly, far more than the USA does; it may not be "free" most places, but it's not the life-ruining-without-a-scholarship price tag, either.

These aren't particularly progressive viewpoints. This might have been an "interesting result" in 1966, but not really in 2016.

And before you raise hell over that, I'd use Tommy Douglas as the counterpoint. Canadian politician, founder of the NDP, and the father of Canada's universal health care. Ran as a democratic socialist in the '40s and remained an avowed socialist his entire career. Actually achieved a lot of what Sanders has talked about, decades earlier. I don't find Sanders particularly "interesting" at all.

Your second point is just a generic polarizing argument of the type that dominates a lot of politics today - you basically start out by asserting that all your beliefs are correct, then say it's the other side's fault for being wrong.

No, I asserted that my "beliefs" are objectively determinable from the facts, combined with a fairly unobjectionable set of ethical principles, similar to those you'd find in most professional codes of conduct. Things like "people deserve to be respected" and "justice should be fostered and supported" and the like. The "beliefs" I rail against here and elsewhere are not. They're based on hateful bigotries, and ignore or misrepresent the facts to prop up that bigotry. That's not "polarized", and it's not a "belief"; it's a statement of fact. And facts aren't up for dispute.

That's the thing; I don't come up with views and then flail around looking for facts to use to prop them up. I start with the facts first. If new facts are introduced, I re-assess. That's how normal rational thinking works.

- - - Updated - - -

Bernie identifies as a democratic socialist...not a socialist.

Democratic socialists are socialists. I'd dispute that Sanders even is a democratic socialist, and instead is more of a social democrat, but where to draw lines there isn't that clear so it's a silly argument to get into. The root line for me is the whole means of production schtick; do you think private ownership of businesses should be the basis of the economy? If "yes", you support capitalism. If "no", you're a socialist. I don't see Sanders crossing that line even in rhetoric, really, which is why I call his self-description into question.

[Endus]

So it still comes down to "I'm right and everyone else is wrong... why can't they just be objective like me?"

No, it comes down to the fact that facts are facts and whining about them doesn't change reality.

Maybe instead of complaining that I have a strong position, try and point out whether I'm actually wrong or not. Because yeah; I'm pretty sure I'm completely correct here, and you're giving me nothing to make me rethink that. Just trying to weirdly shame me for being right.

I've said it before, I'll repeat it again; I'm open to being proven wrong. But this "how dare you be sure you're right about this?" is such a fucking ridiculous angle to take.

The world isn't as black and white as your post made it out to be. You can "have a baseline level of respect and support for everyone regardless of who they may be at their core" and disagree with a policy like affirmative action, which is about to be front and center in the culture wars when the supreme court comes out with its decision soon.

It all boils down to why you "disagree" with said policy.

If it's that you think it's largely been ineffective at achieving meaningful redress at the systemic level, we can have that discussion.

If you're disputing that there's any systemic injustices that would warrant such a program to redress in the first place, though, that's just straight racism and willfully misrepresenting the facts.

To go back to your point, there's way more than one side to the culture war - there's way more than two sides. This is not simple stuff where you can plug objective facts into principles and come out with "affirmative action is correct", like it's a math equation.

When it comes to whether an injustice or inequity exists, you pretty much can. How to address that injustice can, yes, be much more complicated. But not whether to address it. And you absolutely can pretty easily identify when someone's argument is based on misinformation or bigotry, and any argument based on either is to be immediately rejected and thoroughly condemned without "discussion".

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Democratic socialists are socialists. I'd dispute that Sanders even is a democratic socialist, and instead is more of a social democrat, but where to draw lines there isn't that clear so it's a silly argument to get into. The root line for me is the whole means of production schtick; do you think private ownership of businesses should be the basis of the economy? If "yes", you support capitalism. If "no", you're a socialist. I don't see Sanders crossing that line even in rhetoric, really, which is why I call his self-description into question.

I'm just saying he's not a socialist in the way that most Americans tend to define socialism. He's a socialist in the sense that he wants strong social programs in a otherwise capitalistic system. I would say he probably agrees the end goal would be to move away from capiltalism...but, yeah, he's in no hurry to destroy private ownership.

[Endus]

I'm just saying he's not a socialist in the way that most Americans tend to define socialism. He's a socialist in the sense that he wants strong social programs in a otherwise capitalistic system. I would say he probably agrees the end goal would be to move away from capiltalism...but, yeah, he's in no hurry to destroy private ownership.

Yeah; that's usually what's described as "social democrat".

"Democratic socialism is also distinguished from Third Way social democracy because democratic socialists are committed to the systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, while social democrats use capitalism to create a strong welfare state, leaving many businesses under private ownership

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

That's what I was driving at.

[Captain N]

Every one of my posts here has to be followed with someone being like "what he actually means is... RACISM"... it's pretty foolish.

Except every one of your posts in here, and elsewhere involves you pushing for intentionally harmful actions towards already oppressed demographics. If you think it foolish that reasonable people call you out endlessly for your own words and actions that's a you problem. Perhaps you should fix the way you phrase your statements so you don't consistently come off as dog-whistling.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Every one of my posts here has to be followed with someone being like "what he actually means is... RACISM"... it's pretty foolish.

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands."

-Douglas Adams (Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency)

[Draco-Onis]

Clearly you don't remember the last time the GOP had control of both the Presidency and Congress, because Republicans were not in fact able to get much of what they wanted. Most of their political capital was spent on the tax cuts; they were not able to repeal the ACA or curtail public assistance to their heart's content.

They did not repeal the ACA because some of the provisions proved too popular amongst their constituents but they did gut it substantially to the point where we have the same level of uninsured and the return of medical bankruptcies. They also hollowed out tons of regulations and institutions the damage which Biden had not intention of reversing such as the supreme court.

The sole advantage the GOP has is fewer competing interests to balance - but then again, you seem to be confusing "the Democrats didn't do what I personally wanted" with "Democrats don't get things done" so I'm not expecting any form of nuance in your assessments.

Oh yes I am the sole person that wanted a stronger ACA, reversing the Bush and Trump tax cuts on the rich, net neutrality restored, a president that wouldn't green light more oil projects than Trump etc /s

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This discussion started with you asserting that there is only one side to the culture war - the racists who are attacking other cultures. What I'm arguing with and disagreeing with is that incredibly simplistic view. There are plenty of perspectives. There are wealthy people who virtue signal and put Black Lives Matter signs on their lawn but will show up in droves to protest affordable housing being built in their towns. There are people opposed to affirmative action who still consider themselves liberal. There are feminists who are opposed to rights that transgender people support. There are people who believe in rights for minorities who are opposed to abortion. Censorship is an incredibly complex issue that people debate constantly - everyone agrees that certain levels of censorship are ok, but there's substantial disagreement about what those levels are. There are people who are incredibly liberal in almost every scenario but are staunch supporters of gun rights.

Sure, there's people (Mall Cop) that call themselves liberal when they are anything but...and those people get called out on that.

Overall I think it's basically a lot of people who are liberal when it costs them nothing, pointing fingers at other groups who are "the problem". That's why I think progressives would be better off emphasizing broad based policies that most would agree with - minimum wage, abortion, healthcare, infrastructure, and staying away from the third rails that tend to cost them lots of support.

Yeah, sure, we should just let the right lynch trans people because we might hurt their feelings if we call them bigots.

[Endus]

This discussion started with you asserting that there is only one side to the culture war - the racists who are attacking other cultures. What I'm arguing with and disagreeing with is that incredibly simplistic view.

It's reductionist. Any statement about a national trend pretty much has to be if you're fitting it into a couple of sentences. I will pre-emptively note that I was talking about political parties, not individual people, however. But let's see your actual criticisms;

There are plenty of perspectives. There are wealthy people who virtue signal and put Black Lives Matter signs on their lawn but will show up in droves to protest affordable housing being built in their towns.

Those people are either classist or racist. I don't particularly care which flavor of bigotry it is driving their position. But is it what Democrats are about?

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

I'll be referencing the 92 page platform document because it's the most thorough. We'll be doing this for a few points.

For this one, start on p.20. "Putting Homeownership in Reach and Gauranteeing Safe Housing for Every American." Specifically refers to expanding affordable housing nationwide. So, this accusation does not apply to Democrats. NEXT!

There are people opposed to affirmative action who still consider themselves liberal.

First, it bears noting that "liberal" has multiple definitions.
Second, as I said above, you can contest the efficacy of AA programs, but if you stand against addressing the systemic injustices that AA was meant to address, you are racist. It's that simple and clear-cut.
Third, no reference to opposing affirmative action in the platform doc. It does have a section on p.39 for "Achieving Racial Justice and Equality", so it's clear their only opposition would be on whether AA is achieving its goals, not the idea of redressing those systemic historical wrongs. Again, your claim fails to apply to Democrats. NEXT.

There are feminists who are opposed to rights that transgender people support.

Yes, TERFs, a recognized label for a certain flavor of hateful bigot.

And the platform doc has multiple mentions of support for transgender rights and protections, pps 43-44. So, not applicable to Democrats, yet again. NEXT!

There are people who believe in rights for minorities who are opposed to abortion.

The Democrats support freedom of abortion rights; p. 82. So those minorities are free to make whatever choices regarding abortion is right for themselves.

Those do not extend to making those decisions for other people, which is a stance only misogynists support. And the Democrats aren't among them. So wrong again. NEXT!

Censorship is an incredibly complex issue that people debate constantly - everyone agrees that certain levels of censorship are ok, but there's substantial disagreement about what those levels are.

You're gonna have to make an actual point if you want me to respond to it. This says nothing.

There are people who are incredibly liberal in almost every scenario but are staunch supporters of gun rights.

You're gonna have to get way more specific than just saying "gun rights". However, to forestall this point, I'll indicate the section on p.47; "Ending the Epidemic of Gun Violence", which describes a suite of increased gun control platform positions. Which, y'know, don't end gun rights, but definitely limit them more than they currently are. So yet another swing and a miss.

And I think that's your last example. Literally none of them are supported by the Democratic platform, and all were strongly contradicted by the same.

Overall I think it's basically a lot of people who are liberal when it costs them nothing, pointing fingers at other groups who are "the problem". That's why I think progressives would be better off emphasizing broad based policies that most would agree with - minimum wage, abortion, healthcare, infrastructure, and staying away from the third rails that tend to cost them lots of support.

There are no such "rails". Abortion's a massive rail. The minimum wage has been a massive rail for years. Healthcare's constantly under scrutiny. Infrastructure bills have been political hot potatoes for years. You're not making any sense at all.

And on the issues you've listed; yeah, bigots don't like supporting parties that won't support bigotry. Kudos on making my point for me, I guess. Point remains that, without pressure from bigots trying to attack the rights of various minority groups they want to target for inflicted suffering and abuses, there would be no "culture wars". We'd just respect everyone. Those attacks aren't coming from the Democratic Party, and the Democrats resisting those hateful attacks is not the Democrats picking a "culture war". Stop drawing dishonest "both sides" false equivalencies.

[Endus]

Seems like you're saying that if something is in the democratic platform doc, no democrat ever disagrees with it.

See, this is you making shit up, rather than just responding to what I actually said.

I was talking about the Democrats as an organization, not individuals. I corrected you last post on this, and here you are, repeating it, so is it that you didn't actually read my post, or that you don't give a fuck and are going to intentionally lie to my face about what I actually said?

Also, you're saying that because the national platform includes boilerplate about affordable housing for everyone, that must mean that there isn't a nimby component of the democratic party, and there certainly is.

Not in the platform document. Again; I am not and have never been talking about individuals. I'd have to address every individual by themselves to do that, and I don't have time for a hundred million or so breakdowns, let alone the information on everyone's inner point of view by which to do so.

They often hide behind things like environmentalism (near me its "how can the sewer system ever support an extra 200 residents") but they exist. For example, New Jersey is a democratic state - it hasn't voted for a republican president since 1988 - but it has incredibly segregated towns and a huge shortage of affordable housing.

And? Address what I've actually argued rather than making up straw men to attack because you find it easier than dealing with my actual position.

[Endus]

Obviously I'm not asking you to explain what every democrat says, I'm focused on what they actually do, not what they say.

You keep insisting I look at specific individual's personal choices and whether they line up with the party platform. I was only ever talking about the official parties.

The platform document is aspirational and largely irrelevant when it talks about things like affordable housing at a national level - that's why I ignored it

If you're interested in what the Democrats stand for as a party, you can't ignore it.

maybe I should have made it clear that I thought your comments on it are entirely irrelevant. That's why I picked the example of New Jersey, a long time democratic state that hasn't done anything that is in that document.

Again, trying to refocus on the specific choices of individual representatives in a particular State.

You're trying to attack a straw man rather than my actual argument. Explaining the details of your straw man doesn't make it not-a-straw-man.

You're still trying to "both sides" the issue of supporting bigotry as party platform, without any basis for that position. It's a false equivalency.

[unfilteredJW]

This is going nowhere. We're totally off track. Have a good night.

Oh look, Cartmaned out of another thread when shown how weak your positions are.

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/homenews/4034647...bt-vote-claim/

God I love the trivial shit these, "good, honest, devout Republicans" like Boebert will lie over.

She missed the debt ceiling vote because she was late and can't manage her time, not because of some "protest". We have the fuckin video of her running up the Capitol building steps asking if the vote has closed yet that shows she fuckin lied.

It's just hilarious how cool Republicans continue to be with constant, casual, brazen lies like this. If they'll lie about "trivial" matters like this, what else are they lying about?

- - - Updated - - -

https://thehill.com/homenews/4034647...bt-vote-claim/

God I love the trivial shit these, "good, honest, devout Republicans" like Boebert will lie over.

She missed the debt ceiling vote because she was late and can't manage her time, not because of some "protest". We have the fuckin video of her running up the Capitol building steps asking if the vote has closed yet that shows she fuckin lied.

It's just hilarious how cool Republicans continue to be with constant, casual, brazen lies like this. If they'll lie about "trivial" matters like this, what else are they lying about?

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...204745218.html

Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert has taken a DNA test with former professional wrestler Stan Lane to prove that he is not her biological father after doubts were cast on a court-ordered paternity test taken decades ago.

“I can confirm that Stan Lane is not my biological father. I personally have never publicly claimed he was my father — but certainly, that allegation is out there,” Boebert said in a statement to The Daily Beast. “The Toby Keith song ‘Who’s Your Daddy’ hits a bit differently now.”

Maybe she was late and missed this important vote because she was taking a DNA test to debunk a joke on the internet?

I do hope none of my taxpayer dollars are going to her salary.

- - - Updated - - -

https://about.bgov.com/news/house-re...tion-policies/

House Republicans are broadening their scrutiny of the Biden administration’s immigration enforcement by demanding a sit-down with a senior official who oversees deportations.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and immigration subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) on Monday wrote to the deputy executive associate director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations requesting a transcribed interview as soon as possible.

The official’s name is redacted on the letter, first obtained by Bloomberg Government. A person familiar with the committee’s plans, who spoke anonymously to address internal information, confirmed that it is addressed to Daniel Bible.

The interview demand shows how the House GOP is tightening oversight of the Biden administration’s border and immigration policies and laying the groundwork for potential impeachment proceedings against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

House Republicans, having promised BIG BOMBSHELLS in their investigations and turning up nothing in the first 6 months - which isn't surprising even under normal circumstances but really takes the wind out of their rhetorical sails - are opening up even more investigations!

If they spend the entire investigating instead of legislating maybe they can actually find something wrong, somewhere! But they should probably be focused on keeping track of their own whistleblowers before expanding, I hear they've lost a bunch of them which is pretty uncommon!

- - - Updated - - -

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/f...o-just-be-talk

In some great news for McCarthy, the Treason Caucus hasn't tried to remove him yet. Which makes it seem like they're all hat and no cattle, or whatever the folksy saying is for all talk and no game.

Anyways, the Treason Caucus may have just lost their bargaining chip if they're unwilling to make good on this threat.

- - - Updated - - -

https://apnews.com/article/merck-law...83909ccca5d24a

Merck is suing the federal government over a plan to negotiate Medicare drug prices, calling the program a sham equivalent to extortion.

The drugmaker is seeking to halt the program, which was laid out in the Inflation Reduction Act and is expected to save taxpayers billions of dollars in the coming years.

Merck said in a complaint filed Tuesday that the program does not involve genuine negotiation. Instead, it said the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services selects drugs to be included and then dictates the price, threatening drugmakers with “a ruinous daily excise tax” if they decline to agree.

“It is tantamount to extortion,” the drugmaker said in the complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Pharma industry complains that they might not be able to make a killing off of selling drugs to retirees on Medicare.

Merck said in the complaint that the plan laid out in the IRA suggests that federal officials will sit down with drugmakers and negotiate voluntary price agreements.

But the drugmaker said the program doesn’t involve actual negotiations or agreements. It said HHS picks the drugs to be included and then leans on the drugmakers to provide steep discounts under the tax threat.

Merck says the program violates elements of the U.S. Constitution like the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that the government pays “’just compensation’ if it takes ‘property’ for public use,” according to the complaint.

QQ, the five biggest US companies generated $80B in profit last year, I think they can afford to make just a bit less.

- - - Updated - - -

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/f...o-just-be-talk

In some great news for McCarthy, the Treason Caucus hasn't tried to remove him yet. Which makes it seem like they're all hat and no cattle, or whatever the folksy saying is for all talk and no game.

Anyways, the Treason Caucus may have just lost their bargaining chip if they're unwilling to make good on this threat.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/polit...ote/index.html

I spoke too soon -

A bloc of Republican hardliners took down the GOP leadership’s efforts on two bills this week, a move they said was retaliation for Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s deal with President Joe Biden to suspend the national debt limit.

The procedural vote, which was 206-220, failed on Tuesday afternoon as the hardliners revolted over their claims that McCarthy violated the agreement he resumed to secure the speakership in January. The move sank a bill to ban the prohibition of gas stoves and to impose new Hill oversight on federal rules.

[Shadowferal]

CONFIRMED: James Comer Just Sniffing Rudy Giuliani's Russian Spy Farts And Calling It A Biden Investigation

Ok, well FIRST OF ALL, despite what we may have written previously, it is definitely NOT just Comer sitting in a corner playing a Deliverance banjo while he roasts Rudy Giuliani's Russian spy farts over an open flame. He's not in the corner at all! He's whoring himself out on every TV show that'll have him. Every five seconds his idiot-looking square head is on the TV, with his resting "I did an accident and I just smelled it" face, saying absolutely nothing.

Right now, Comer is angrily strumming his banjo at FBI Director Chris Wray, because he clearly believes Wray is not adequately respecting his authori-tah. He said yesterday that he's going to take up a contempt motion against Wray on Thursday, because Wray won't just surrender this FD-1023 form he wants, which he swears PROVES that Joe Biden took [money] from [somebody] who is [foreign] in exchange for [thing]. That's what Comer has been saying on the TV all this time! (He refuses to say specifically what the form says or which Russian spy is making the allegations, most likely because it is all Rudy Giuliani's recycled Russian spy farts from before the 2020 election. If James Comer said that out loud, everybody would laugh at him, even more than they are right now.)

It's not that Wray is bogarting the form. He let Comer and Democratic committee ranking member Jamie Raskin see it. And because Jamie Raskin saw it, he was able to confirm that it is ... Rudy Giuliani's recycled wet Russian spy farts.

Here Comer is yesterday after he saw the form, announcing his plans to hold Wray in contempt for refusing to give the form to the whole committee. He swore his investigation is NOT DEAD, dammit, NOT DEAD. (When you have to insist your investigation isn't dead, it's not a good sign.)

‐----‐--------

Lots of cheek in the link.

[Edge-]

Really, Comer should probably find the whistleblowers he apparently lost before continuing with any investigation. If he can't keep track of 10
"totally real, genuine, I swear they exist" whistleblowers how on earth are we supposed to believe he can oversee a sprawling, widespread investigation on sensitive topics?

[beanman12345]

Maybe she was late and missed this important vote because she was taking a DNA test to debunk a joke on the internet?

I do hope none of my taxpayer dollars are going to her salary.

Wait wait Stan Lane, from the fkn Midnight Express? looool so her mom was a ring rat, just lying to her daughter about who her daddy is? Oh god Jim Cornette probably has the best reaction to this.

[Breccia]

Hey McCarthy, how's the leadership post treating you? When you aren't giving it to Greene, that is.

House conservatives Tuesday blew up an effort by GOP leadership to advance several bills in a dramatic confrontation on the House floor, the result of a revolt against the debt limit deal cut by Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and President Biden just days earlier.

Eleven Republicans — most of whom are members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus — joined Democrats

Just a reminder, Trump fucked up 2022's election so hard, all it took was eleven.

in voting against a rule to advance four bills related to gas stoves and regulatory reform, enough opposition to tank the rule and block the legislation from advancing to the floor.

Just before the vote closed, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) changed his vote to oppose the rule as well, a move that allows him to bring up the rule for another vote at a later time. The rule was blocked by a final vote of 220-206.

The revolt made for a dramatic scene on the House floor, where Scalise huddled with more than a dozen conservatives in the back of the chamber in a tense effort to flip votes and allow the bills to advance to the floor.

The normally-routine rule vote — which was scheduled to be only five minutes — went on for more than 50.

The revolt was also a reality check for McCarthy, who has been taking a victory lap after Congress passed and Biden signed a bill to suspend the debt limit that was the product of negotiations between House Republicans and the White House.

“We’re frustrated at the way this place is operating,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) — one of the conservatives who voted against the rule — told reporters as the vote was still happening.

"This where you call out Speaker Greene, too?"

Not this time, she wasn't one of them.

I know we all look at Trump and 2024 for the most obvious signs of a civil war between the classic conservatives and the rabid fanbase, but let's not forget that a war is a battle on several fronts.

At the center of the clash was Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), who has been embroiled in a back-and-forth with Scalise over the Georgia Republican’s legislation regarding a pistol stabilizing brace.

Clyde alleged that leadership threatened to block his bill from receiving a vote on the floor if he opposed the rule on the debt ceiling bill. On Tuesday morning, Scalise said he had a conversation with Clyde about problems the bill would face because of Republican opposition to the measure. He said, however, that GOP leadership was “working hard” to get the legislation passed.

“We’re not gonna live in a system where our members are subject to this type of petty punishment, and we’re not gonna live in a system where our constituents are left abandoned by anyone here in the Congress,” he added. “And rendering that type of punishment is certainly — it’s debasing to the institution.”

You knew who you signed up with. All of you.