mtutiger

I may be in the minority here, but I don't know that Fetterman is all that great a candidate. Conor Lamb would be better.

Never considered this possibility, but it makes sense in retrospect

Ya know, just a routine tour of the Capitol...

You mean to tell me that all the folks at Fox who have said this was all NBD were all begging him to stop the violence? Shocking.

Really contradicts the whole "its no big deal" thing we've been hearing for months

I think the idea here is that DeSantis / Abbott types should be rewarded or praised for going through the motions on the basics without factoring in other actions that are hostile toward businesses / local governments / schools, etc. for acting as they see fit on COVID-19. Unsurprisingly, some people don't feel the same.

One of us complains about Texas because they actually live in this state and are subject to the policies of the government here. And yeah, while the administration (under the auspices of the Texas Department of State Health Services) does advocate for vaccination and runs ads to that effect, it's not exactly surprising that message is undermined by the various statewide elected officials going out and vice signaling on cable news and conservative radio shows. Second of all, to the extent that the Governor is advocating for the vaccine, that support is also undermined by the fact that he wishes to impede the choices that businesses or local governments would otherwise make in terms of vaccine mandates. These guys all scream bloody murder about big government when in Washington, yet locally, they have absolutely no problem sitting in Austin and issuing dictates telling private businesses how to run their shops. Again, taking into account these actions, not exactly surprising that, to the extent the advocacy exists, it's overshadowed by actions that come across to a lot of people as being hostile toward getting as many people vaccinated as possible.

It's existence really makes governing incredibly hard in this country, at least in the environment that exists today where passing even simple and relatively uncontroversial stuff like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill is like pulling teeth.

If Archie were to follow his rule on guns, then he'd probably refrain from commenting on HR1 since he clearly hasn't read the bill or absorbed what is actually in it.

This is a distinction without a difference if I've ever seen one.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: people focus so much on left/right bias that they seem blinded to the ways that access can bias journalists as well. Foreign policy is a great example... there's not a lot of daylight between the Jake Tapper or Josh Rogins of the world and the folks ago were largely in favor of staying in that country forever. So no, I don't think that journalists were particularly objective during that period.

Also, the car insurance rates of even the safest drivers are influenced by the idiots as well.

Without rehashing all this again, you will never convince me that, even with the most perfect, well executed withdrawal, Jake Tapper had the objectivity to not color his coverage with his editorial view on Afghanistan.

To this end, too, so much time is spent (not just here but also with Dem social media people) on theoretical scenarios that I worry that people aren't actually focused on, you know, actually winning elections.

I guess the thing that I'm pushing back on is the assumption that there is zero cost whatsoever to overriding majority rule. I dont ultimately know how it would play out in reality, but however it does, it won't be at zero cost. Especially since it'd effectively be the end of the Republic.

I wouldn't either.

Why? You really think CA shrugs its shoulders and moves on in that theoretical case?

The Bluetooth piece was a thing of beauty coming from the same folks who screamed about Hillary Clinton and data security back in 2016. Almost like they are creating stuff to complain about.

I dunno. But the day that a theoretical overturning of the Presidency happens, this country gets even harder to govern than it is now. And yeah, states like NY and CA and IL, are they gonna sit that debate out? Not that it was ever really possible (at least this time), but just try to imagine a world where Trump succeeded on 1/6. I dont think the other 83 million, plus all the states that voted for Biden, just sit meekly and take that. That appears to be a basic assumption I see whenever this debate comes up

If our Presidential Elections become meaningless, it's easy to see the United States becoming completely ungovernable.

And with regard to the bolded, on one hand, I probably feel as jaded as the rest of my millennial cohort on some of the progress, but that doesn't discount political reality.... like, if I set about from scratch trying to set up a form of government, the United States system wouldn't be the way I'd set it up. It's not a coincidence that countries like Germany and France, whose democracies post-WW2 we helped piece together, did not emulate us. But, this is the system we have. These are the institutions we have. And it wouldnt matter if Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren were President, they would have to deal with this system. No amount of complaining would change that. So yeah, with the political reality as it exists, Biden probably has played his hand as best he can. I have my complaints (mostly related to immigration issues and on the speed of addressing supply chain issues) but he has gotten a lot done. More than I think Bernie or Liz would have. But I dont know that people understand or recognize the realities of this system... the Presidency is a powerful institution, but they aren't kings or dictators.

Yet he never said that he would.