***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Mark Antony]

The man who spent years defending trump is now in here talking about who has and hasn’t been vaccinated when the largest group of unvaccinated people are those who supported that racist bigot

Don't even know why ya'll bother with someone whose logic was that his support of Trump was for black people. Such a clear lack of reasoning. I hope he doesn't say that out loud.

 

[wavycrocket]

wavycrocket Ya mans back it again



Glen Greenwald was on Tucker to criticize Obama for supposedly flaunting this wealth in people's faces for having a birthday party and building a presidential library. That Obama is the one hung up on being adored.

To make matters worse, he is doing this while talking to a Tucker who is Hungary, kissing the *** of Viktor Oban and his fascist regime

Bruh, this dude is really a piece of work

I can’t stress this enough, Glenn Greenwald is the WORST of the worst. Bottom of the barrel.

 

[aepps20]

I support vaccines I believe that African Americans need to be vaccinated. I believe that we need to do everything we can to encourage people to get vaccinated. I say this on my dwalk31 voice with BASS.

 

[IATT]

Don't even know why ya'll bother with someone whose logic was that his support of Trump was for black people. Such a clear lack of reasoning. I hope he doesn't say that out loud.

giving the energy I put into it a little too much credit.. I’m more so just not letting that dumb shh slide

This best encapsulates my views on dude

 

[tay1]

Don't even know why ya'll bother with someone whose logic was that his support of Trump was for black people. Such a clear lack of reasoning. I hope he doesn't say that out loud.

They been going back and forth with bruh for years . They enjoy it.

 

[dwalk31]

I support vaccines I believe that African Americans need to be vaccinated. I believe that we need to do everything we can to encourage people to get vaccinated. I say this on my dwalk31 voice with BASS.

Including punitive measures against Black Americans who aren’t vaccinated?

Because that’s the discussion.

 

[dacomeup]

The unvaccinated make a choice, and everyone has to pay for it. That is simply unfair

I agree with this. Mandates are going to have to come from the private sector and/or making it impossible for people to do things like travel without vaccinations though.

 

[IATT]

I agree with this. Mandates are going to have to come from the private sector and/or making it impossible for people to do things like travel without vaccinations though.

i think you basically make it unbearable or even impossible to do shh without being vaccinated

cant leave or come into the country.. public school is out.. can’t be indoors with people outside of your household.. shh can’t be in a car with more than X amount of people

if you wanted to be unvaccinated, you should have stricter mask requirements

put a higher tax burden on the companies that don’t do anything or give tax breaks to those who do

 

[blastercombo]

“Pro life doesn’t mean pro life. Black Lives Matter doesn’t mean Black Lives Matter ” lol from the makers of “I didn’t Not not not say trump is racist”

 

[boris]

The pro life movement is about abortion. That isn’t news.

Just like the Black Lives Matter movement is about the systematic and systemic oppression of Black Americans.

Citing “pro life” to situations unrelated to abortion is like when someone mentions Black Lives Matter about a shooting in Chicago or when they mention it in regards to the ridiculous concept of “black on black violence.”

Maybe you should call yourself something else instead of pro-life. Given some of the common arguments on the pro-life side, it's not unreasonable to conclude that those who claim to be pro-life should actually give a **** about human life.

 

[dwalk31]

Maybe you should call yourself something else instead of pro-life. Given some of the common arguments on the pro-life side, it's not unreasonable to conclude that those who claim to be pro-life should actually give a **** about human life.

This same surface-level logic can be used as it relates to the name(s) of a lot of movements.

Doesn’t change the reality of the movement’s focus.

The inability to understand the focus of a particular movement is a problem that should be addressed with the people failing to interpret it properly.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Redistricting data comes out in 11 days

We know the extent of how the GOP plans to lock the Dems out of power in the House for the next decade

 

[boris]

This same surface-level logic can be used as it relates to the name(s) of a lot of movements.

Doesn’t change the reality of the movement’s focus.

The inability to understand the focus of a particular movement is a problem that should be addressed with the people failing to interpret it properly.

No one is failing to interpret the movement properly. They are calling into question whether people actually care about that movement for the purported reasons.

You want to narrowly focus on abortion because then you can avoid addressing your hypocrisy.

 

[dwalk31]

You want to narrowly focus on abortion because then you can avoid addressing your hypocrisy.

How did this become about me personally? Or did you mean “they?”

 

[dwalk31]

 

[boris]

How did this become about me personally? Or did you mean “they?”

Wasn't this you?

The pro life movement is about abortion. That isn’t news.

Just like the Black Lives Matter movement is about the systematic and systemic oppression of Black Americans.

Citing “pro life” to situations unrelated to abortion is like when someone mentions Black Lives Matter about a shooting in Chicago or when they mention it in regards to the ridiculous concept of “black on black violence.”

 

[dwalk31]

Wasn't this you?

Yea, that’s me explaining what the pro life movement is about. And me explaining what the Black Lives Matter movement is about.

Your post seemed to be about me personally as opposed to the larger concept of those movements. Not sure how it got there.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Sometimes I really wonder how ****ing stupid Democratic leadership can be....

Time to Get Serious About the Debt Limit

With the clocking ticking, there’s no evidence that Democrats have a plan for raising the ceiling — and avoiding catastrophe.

www.bloomberg.com

I’m starting to worry that Democrats are seriously botching the debt limit. Remember, the debt limit, set by law, prevents the government from borrowing money to pay for spending commitments that Congress and the president have already made. It’s going to need to be raised at some point this fall. But if Democrats have a strategy for doing so, I don’t see it.

The best plan would’ve been to include an increase in the pandemic-relief bill that passed at the end of the previous Congress. But perhaps Democrats didn’t have the leverage at that point. The second-best choice would’ve been to raise the limit as part of the next relief bill, passed through the reconciliation procedure earlier this year. That didn’t happen either.

Many commentators assumed that a debt-limit increase would be in the reconciliation bill that the Senate is now drafting, which will contain the spending agenda that didn’t make it into the bipartisan infrastructure bill. But Politico’s Caitlin Emma and Jennifer Scholtes report that, no, it’s not going there, either. Congress scholar Molly Reynolds speculates that timing is the problem — after all, the debt limit will have to be raised in time to avoid the threat of a government default, and Democrats aren’t certain that the reconciliation bill will be ready in time.

Evidently, the plan is to combine an increase with a short-term spending bill that needs to pass by the end of September to prevent a government shutdown, and Democratic lawmakers are telling reporters that they expect to get some Republican votes for it, which seems extremely unlikely. In fact, they don’t really need Republican votes; they just need Republicans to refrain from filibustering and allow the bill to pass with only Democratic votes. But that seems unlikely as well.

What happens if Republicans just say no?

As long as the debt limit doesn’t need to be raised until October or later, they could just force the issue, accepting a shutdown as a way of demonstrating Republican irresponsibility. That seems … unwise. Imposing short-term costs on individuals who would be affected directly, along with medium-term costs on the economy, in exchange for the possibility of a public-opinion boost that everyone will have forgotten well before the midterms, is a bad bargain even if it works. The other option would be to rush yet another budget resolution through and put the emergency measures into another reconciliation bill. Or perhaps add the debt limit to the infrastructure bill after all, if it’s ready to go.

What doesn’t seem plausible is giving in to Republican demands. Even if Democratic congressional leaders and the White House wanted to, it’s hard to see where the votes would come from to pass a bill that increased the debt limit while cutting entitlements — it would lose far more liberal Democrats than it would gain Republicans.

The only other way I could see this working would be if all 50 Democratic senators wanted to use a bill to keep the government running and avoid a default as an excuse to eliminate the filibuster. But there hasn’t been even a hint that Senator Joe Manchin would have any interest in that. If that’s the plan, they’re doing a good job of keeping it quiet.

This all seems like a lot of unnecessary risk. The debt limit is a foolish, unnecessary law that should be repealed anyway. But Democrats have known this moment was coming for months. If repealing the debt limit isn’t on the table — and that probably can’t be done through reconciliation — they should at least provide for four years’ worth of borrowing room. Better still, they could set the new limit so high that it effectively makes further increases unnecessary. Perhaps that’s a tough vote, but it’s unlikely there are any voters who would ignore an attack ad over a simple one-year debt limit increase but be outraged about a larger one.

In other words: It’s always been locked in that Democrats would have to take one tough debt-limit vote. But whatever minimal risk that involves, the real danger is that they come close enough to a default to harm the economy — assuming they wouldn’t actually allow a default.

There is a plan, right?

Today, Mitch McConnell said no.

 

[the natural mystic]

Including punitive measures against Black Americans who aren’t vaccinated?

Because that’s the discussion.

What punitive measures are you talking about?

 

[dinyc3st]

Something doesn't sit well with me when a trump supporter is speaking on behalf of the black community but I digress.

If you're not willing to take the vaccine then you cannot expect your life to function as it was before the pandemic. The burden is on you. If a restaurant refuses your business, that's on you. If you can't fly, that's on you. If you can't go to work, that's on you. It's your right not to get the vaccine but don't encroach on mine by putting me or my kids at risk. That's at the end of the day.

The fact that they're willing to risk other people's lives while talking about "pro-life" is really baffling

 

[dwalk31]

What punitive measures are you talking about?

The ones that osh kosh bosh described. You may need to scroll back a few pages to catch up with the discussion.

 

[RustyShackleford]

The ones that osh kosh bosh described. You may need to scroll back a few pages to catch up with the discussion.

How about you quote them for us, because the main one I found him mentioning repeatedly was having people provide negative covid test at their expense, which other ones did I miss.

 

[the natural mystic]

The ones that osh kosh bosh described. You may need to scroll back a few pages to catch up with the discussion.

I read what he said but please list what you consider punitive.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I know Delk won't intentionally avoid getting into specifics because he thinks keeping it vague allows him to frame the discussion in a certain way, and allow him to appear to have the moral high ground on osh kosh bosh

I know for certain that is not what is happening. So I look forward to him getting into specifics and showing everyone how principled he is.

Go ahead and get your shine on dwalk31

 

[dwalk31]

I read what he said but please list what you consider punitive.

What he stated is what I consider punitive (and is, in fact, what the word punitive means).

If you’ve read what he said then those are the punitive measures I’m discussing.