No I didn't. But perhaps it's a clue into your take on it. Is it your belief that if it wasn't provable as a crime that there was no collusion? Collusion is not a crime. Collusion is different people or groups working together for a purpose. You stated that it has been proven there was no collusion. That is demonstrably false and the evidence for that has been shown time and time again. One of the reasons and perhaps the main reason there weren't criminal charges for conspiracy is that the participants had to be willfully breaking the law. The investigators weren't sure if the participants were aware of the laws. So their ignorance of the law is what helped them avoid prosecution. It's like if a person didn't know that robbing a bank was illegal and the law said they have to be willfully breaking the law to be prosecuted, they wouldn't be charged with bank robbery. It doesn't mean the robbers didn't steal money from the bank. They didn't avoid prosecution because they weren't meeting and soliciting help from the Russians. The Trump campaign was absolutely seeeking help from the Russians and giving them information and promises of favor in return. So if it is okay to you that the campaign may have been too ignorant to know they were committing violations, then that's up to you. But it doesn't make it okay that they were knowingly working with an adversary of the United States to win the election. But either way your statement that it has been proven that there was no collusion has been shown to be false.
They are just a couple of the white people that MLK Jr. warned us about. There are many more white people out there that MLK Jr. warned us about.
Democrats ponder Plan B strategy to circumvent voting rights filibuster https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...rategy-to-circumvent-voting-rights-filibuster excerpt: Now some Democrats are discussing a novel approach to circumventing a Republican filibuster that may allow voting rights legislation to pass with 51 votes without changing the Senate’s rules. These Democrats, including Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), are exploring the possibility of forcing Senate Republicans to actually hold the floor with speeches and procedural motions. They hope that the Republican opposition may tire itself out after a few days or weeks and that Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) may be able to then call for a simple-majority vote on final passage and skip the formal procedural vote — known as cloture — on ending debate. more
I think it's time to primary Manchin and maybe Sinema. Dems probably lose a couple of Senate seats in the process. But enforcing some minimum level of party discipline is necessary. Having them wear the (D) means Republicans can't control Congress' agenda, but neither can Democrats do anything and they get all the blame for their inaction. Manchin and Sinema should be able to see as well as I can that the inability to advance the party agenda in the Senate will cost the party seats in both the House and the Senate, and significantly damages Biden's bid for re-election. I honestly think the party is better off being the minority without them than being in power with them. Disown them. Remove the party apparatus support. Fund an opponent in the primary. I do agree with this. Democrats may very well soon lose control of the Senate. Maybe they should have nuked it when Biden got into office, but they've frittered away all their time now. Maybe they'd get the voting bill and some watered down BBB, and then they're done. Biden can block Republican legislation until 2024. But then we've got Trump again, a Republican Congress, and no filibuster. That's a terrible plan.
I think that is a great strategy re: sinema. And congressman Ruben Gallego is already lining up to challenge her in the primary. She is an easier target and lightweight. I think Democrats would have an easier time holding that seat. manchin would be a tougher target. And if he were to get primaried I think republicans would win that seat easily. Probably better to have the half a democrat support he provides. And I would seriously stick him with the minority leader role if republicans retake the senate. Let him be the one explaining why nothing gets done and why mcconnell eliminated the fillibuster.
Well that's my point. At this point, I'd rather have a Republican in that seat than Joe Manchin. He has ****ed over the party, and if he doesn't get disciplined others will do the same later. Republicans don't hesitate to punish those who go astray. So they don't go astray when the chips are down. Probably, another Democrat won't beat him in the primary. But it should be more than enough to sink him in the general.
vetoing legislation is a much different animal politically than the legislation never reaching your desk because of a gridlocked congress if Dems abolish the filibuster and then lose control of Congress next year, GOP will send Biden legislation, and he will have to answer for every veto when he runs in 2024
No you wouldn't. Manchin is frustrating as hell, but you can be certain that a Republican in that seat would've meant no American Rescue Plan or another round of stimulus payments. It would've meant a much, much smaller bench of Biden judicial appointments. Manchin is currently a necessary evil who was reelected in a +39% Trump state. The goal should be to actually win races in places like Maine and North Carolina so that the party doesn't need Manchin's vote for anything.
I don't think Joe Manchin had anything to do with Sarah Gideon leaving $14M of campaign funds in the bank or Cal Cunningham having an affair in winnable races or the DNC pumping money into unwinnable races in Kentucky and South Carolina at the expense of winnable states. Insofar as Manchin's obstinance hurts Democratic campaigns in other states going forward, I don't know that it outweighs strong candidates running against radicalized GOP nominees.
There is this perception that McConnell values tradition. That the filibuster would only go away if the DEM does it first. The evidence for this is a single event in history. Does anyone remember McConnell supporting Trump, wouldn't allow a Supreme Court nominee to even be considered, and broke his own BS that we should let the American voter decide? This isn't a person that values tradition or words. The reason McConnell nuked the SC filibuster is simple. He saw politically that it was the right time and the risk of breaking the SC filibuster to his party was low. The members of the SC do not leave until they age out of functional existence, or die. As soon the landscape align with Republicans, McConnell would get rid of the legislative filibuster. If all the anti-democratic election laws do their job as intended and Republicans consistently win OR if Trump loses but Republican steals the election successfully, then the landscape shifts tremendously toward Republicans holding power for a long time. At that point, getting rid of the legislative filibuster poses little risk to Republicans, and McConnell would nuke it. At the end of the day, the trade-off is between protecting the right to vote and democracy and risking future Congress going extreme from time to time. That's a pretty easy choice to me.
I don't doubt you. I never thought of McConnell as a traditionalist. He seems to do whatever maximizes his power, and speaks pretty brazenly about it too. I'm sure if he sees advantage in getting rid of the filibuster, he will. But, little maneuvers can make taking that step more or less profitable for him. If Dems do it first, he can let them take the criticism (and pile on) and still enjoy the advantages of ruling without it. If Dems don't do it, he would have to find the votes to do it himself (what if someone like Liz Cheney doesn't play along?), and he'd have to worry about what it will do to vulnerable R seats' re-elections. Probably Senators should find a rule they think is appropriate for conducting their business whether they are in the majority or minority. Then leave it alone, and stop waving around rules changes as a cudgel to get what you want. I thought the speaking filibuster was alright. Being able to filibuster without any personal effort makes it too easy to abuse. But having no filibuster at all is also easy to abuse. Requiring members to speak is a decent middle ground.
I'd put it in front of Sinema privately first (to give her a chance to get on board) but otherwise I'd agree
How were McCain, Collins, and Murkowski punished for killing the Obamacare vote? How were any of the GOP Senators punished for voting to impeach Trump (Romney did it twice!)? Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have repeatedly caused the GOP problems on major bills and procedural stuff. The GOP doesn't punish their people any more than Dems do in the Senate. Outside of tax reform, they weren't able to agree on or pass basically anything during the entire Trump admin. Liz Cheney's not in the Senate. But didn't you just tell us the Dems should dump Manchin because he doesn't go along with Dem leadership but the GOP has an iron grip on their members and they'll fall in line? On a side note, does anyone actually think voters care about the filibuster? Are people going to turn on Dems because there's no filibuster but they passed voting rights? Is anyone going to support a party because they didn't abolish the filibuster?
I don't think voters care about the filibusters. If anything, voters are very tired of the US Congress that is often stuck and can't do much of anything. What they care about is what Congress does, not the procedures on how they do it. This is a strong reason also why we shouldn't be so overly concerned about getting rid of the legislative filibusters. If Congress overstep and go extreme, they will be punished for it (as long as the right to vote and our democracy still works). We already have that check in place, but we are at a high risk of losing it. It's pretty crazy to think that we would risk losing that check, the check that counts, for something that few care about - procedures. Agree, at minimum, it should be a talking filibuster.
