Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I am not sure what the exact breakdown is but I know a lot of grants for science funding run through the National Science Foundation which is funded by Congress and Congress has previously used its influence to bar funding for certain topics.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I try to analyze the situation neutrally in my OPs but.. yea. He supports the criminalization of gay sex. He's opposed to same sex marriage. He led the amicus brief urging SCOTUS to throw out the electoral college votes of several states in 2020. He was one of the Reps to vote against certifying the results of several state elections. Hard not to see how votes for this guy aren't an albatross around the neck of moderate Republicans in 2024. 15 Republicans in Congress were elected in districts Biden won in 2020.
EDIT: Corrected links.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I guess I'm wondering what the alternative to working within the system is. What's the solution to immigration that doesn't rely on controlling the apparatus of the federal government? What's the solution to state's recalcitrance in respecting the right to bear arms other than trying to control the federal government and judiciary? You don't perceive working within the system as being a viable way to achieve your goals, alright, then what is?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
Can you clarify what a "Red Tribe perspective" is? I think the Bush and Trump tax cuts qualify straightforwardly. Or the cap on SALT deductions. Probably I could think of others.
Welcome back to the United States House of Representatives quest to choose a Speaker. Now in week 4.
The current Republican Candidate is Mike Johnson (R-LA). There hasn't been much by way of public dissent from Republicans on Johnson (at least that I've seen) so he may be someone that has a real chance. Frankly I'd be a little surprised that Reps opposed to Jordan would be fine with Johnson given their similarities. There has been little public dissent and allegedly was not much dissent in the Republican Conference after he was selected. First vote expected to start shortly.
ETA:
By a vote of 220-209 Mike Johnson becomes the new Speaker of the House on the first ballot.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I am all for taking effective action to achieve one's goals but have the actions of the more hard-right Members actually achieved any of their goals? What government spending has been reduced due to the current fight over Speaker? What spending is likely to be reduced? As best I can tell the current intransigence of some Members to get cuts even greater than were previously agreed to resulted in the current Continuing Resolution that does not implement those cuts. Members own actions sabotaged their goals! Over 100 Republicans voted for that Continuing Resolution. If we get close to another shut down do you think all those Republicans are gonna just throw up their hands and say "Welp, guess we're gonna have a shut down!" Or will five of them make some kind of power-sharing deal with Democrats and elect Jeffries as Speaker?
If your moderate, reasonable centrism convinces a critical mass of people that the system is incapable of serving their values and interests, they will burn it to the ground and replace it with something else, and no appeal to the rulebooks will stop them. You can call this the actions of "sour grapes losers" if it makes you feel better, but that isn't going to help much if you can't actually stop them from doing it.
Okay, but nothing like that critical mass exists. The people currently in the House that seem to have the perspective are, like, 8/435. The portion of the electorate even smaller. If a similar number of Republicans decide the status quo with the Democrats is preferable to the present chaos that's enough to shut them out entirely. The more painful this group makes things on more moderate Republicans the more likely this is to occur and the less likely they are to achieve any of their goals.
It is easier to extract value from Congress by destroying Congress than by using it as a tool, and so it is being destroyed. That this could quite plausibly result in short-term electoral defeat for Red Tribe is of less concern, when fewer and fewer Red Tribers over time believe that the current system is capable of serving their interests at all. In a population where trust in and respect for the democratic process and social institutions generally decline with every election, electoral loss is not an unalloyed detriment. Why worry about the laws passed, when the other side flouts them and you've concluded that you should as well?
The idea that Red Tribers don't believe control of the United States government could serve their interests seems obviously false? Both in terms of their beliefs and in terms of reality.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I suppose I recognize this is substantively a value judgement but I think our current being closer to (a) than we were historically has been clearly worth it.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
It makes Republicans look incompetent. Choosing a Speaker is supposed to be simple. So much so that the last time a Speaker election required more than a single ballot was in 1923. You have to go back to the 1800's to find a Speaker election that took as many ballots as McCarthy's. It also means Republicans aren't able to advance any conservative agenda, via either legislation or committee. Who are the independents, the moderates, the fence-sitters, looking at this Speaker fight and going "More of this please?"
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
This is just very obviously false? They fund the executive branch every year. There have been a bunch of changes in tax rates. The Affordable Care Act. Congress has passed tons of substantive legislation these last "decades."
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
If you want a lower deficit the solution is to increase taxes. As a fraction of GDP primary government (i.e. non-interest) spending is actually lower in 2019 than it was in 2012. The reason the deficit is larger as a fraction of GDP is because the permanent Bush and Trump tax cuts decreased revenue even faster than spending has decreased. Between 2012 and 2019 primary government spending fell from 23.9% of GDP to 22.1% of GDP while revenues fell from 25.8% of GDP to 19.6% of GDP. If we repealed the Bush and Trump tax cuts our debt:GDP ratio would be on the way to 0.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I think I'm as progressive as anyone and I'm pretty confident I don't believe "that casual sex ... devalues or dishonors [women] in some way." I'm not sure I know any progressives that do believe that. Neither the linked comment nor yours provide any evidence that progressives do believe this so forgive me for being a little skeptical that it's true.
I’d argue that the more or less unstated promise of the Sexual Revolution to young single women was that: a) they will be sexually free without inviting social shame i.e. normalized sexual experimentation and promiscuity on their part will not have an unfavorable long-term effect on men’s attitudes towards them, and women will not sexually shame one another anymore b) they will be able to leave their constrictive gender roles to the extent they see fit, but this will not lead to social issues and anomie because men will be willing to fill those roles instead i.e. men will have no problem becoming stay-at-home dads, nurses, kindergarteners, doing housework etc.
And none of that turned out to be true.
I mean, if you view (a) and (b) as binaries that society is either like or not then sure, we aren't there. But if you view (a) and (b) as spectra that societal norms can be closer to or farther from I think it would be pretty hard to argue we're not much closer to (a) and (b) today than we were pre-Sexual Revolution. Sure, maybe the Sexual Revolution (in the sense of particular events that occurred in the 1960's and 1970's) weren't enough to get us all the way there, but my perception is they started us down this path that we continue on towards those outcomes.
Everyone wants to think the promised revolution ending in utopia will happen in their lifetimes. Almost half of Christians polled by PEW back in 2013 thought Christ would return to Earth in the next 40 years. Naturally it's disappointing when you find out that the fruits of the promised revolution may not be happening while you would be alive to experience them.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
The average American probably hasn't seen much impact due to this Congressional deadlock. When Americans interact with the government in their day to day lives it's generally with some executive branch agency. Congress is most relevant here as the entity responsible for passing an annual bill funding the operation of these agencies. Since the House's last action before McCarthy was removed was passing a spending bill keeping executive agencies funded through Nov 17th there hasn't been much impact. If we make it to the end of the current Continuing Resolution without a Speaker or another funding bill the impact will become more apparent as various federal agencies cease operation due to lack of funds and a bunch of employees are furloughed.
Coming to the end of our third week without a Speaker in the United States House of Representatives.
We started the day with something like nine Republican candidates in the running. Eventually this was narrowed down to one by internal Conference voting. Then a sufficient number of Reps said they would refuse to vote for the winner on the floor anyway so now we're back to... internal Conference voting! I seriously do not understand the point of these votes. If Reps won't honor the result in sufficient numbers such that the winner can't actually be elected what purpose is the internal vote serving? I thought it was a meme when I someone on Twitter say (paraphrasing): "There are only two results some GOP Reps accept: We win and try again." Apparently their may be some kind of discussion about a joint Speakership between McCarthy and Jordan? I'm pretty sure Speaker of the House is a constitutional position, it has to be one of them. Would each candidates opponents really trust whoever was actually the Speaker? I can feel Hakeem Jeffries odds rising in real time.
We're about 3 weeks out from the end of the current CR on 11/17. There's some dark comedy in Kevin McCarthy losing his Speakership to avoid a government shutdown and then we have a government shutdown anyway. At least it'll be after Virginia elections so maybe Republicans can do well there!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
The strategy is opaque to me as well. I'm under the impression attrition is how McCarthy got the last few holdouts to vote "Present" rather than for someone else, which secured him the Speakership. However there was a lot of discussion and compromise to actually get the votes over Jeffries. My impression is Jordan hasn't been doing this part (maybe he can't?) which means getting people to vote "Present" by attrition is not going to work.
Third vote for Speaker of the United States House of Representatives set to start shortly.
What I'm hearing is the plan now is to do marathon votes, potentially through the weekend, as a strategy to wear down the holdouts and elect Jordan. I'm skeptical this will be successful. Allegedly some Republicans are saying they will go home for the weekend, Speaker vote or no. That is a bit of a sketchy place to be in because if enough go home (10) that means Hakeem Jeffries will be elected Speaker rather than Jordan. I imagine there would be some immediate votes to vacate the chair if that occurred but not sure how they would turn out. Also some Republicans have apparently been pressuring McHenry to bring legislation to the floor without a bill empowering him and he threatened to resign rather than do so.
ETA:
At the end of the third ballot results stand at:
210 - Jeffries
194 - Jordan
25 - Other
4 - NV
Jordan losing ground from the second vote as expected.
ETA2:
Reporting coming out of Republicans closed conference following the vote indicates the holdouts have no demands and want no concessions, they just don't want Jordan to be Speaker. If 8 people will never vote for McCarthy, 20 people will never vote for Scalise, and 25 will never vote for Jordan I'm not sure how this ends. One Rep was pictured carrying a resolution to oust McHenry as Speaker Pro Tempore. Maybe his replacement will be more amenable to doing legislative business without an empowering resolution? Apparently Jordan's latest vote total is the tied for the lowest in a vote for candidate for Speaker by a majority party since 1911 when the House was set at 435 members.
ETA3:
Jim Jordan has reportedly lost an internal ballot (88-112) and is out as Speaker Designate for the Republicans. As an amusing aside the 8 Republicans who ousted McCarthy have apparently circulated a letter claiming to be willing to accept some punishment like censure or expulsion from the Conference if it helped get Jordan elected. One problem? Rep Ken Buck has voted against Jordan all three times and apparently did not sign off on being included in the letter.
Apparently House is now going home for the weekend, lots more people expected to put their hats in the ring this next round.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
Any numerical estimate I would give would be low confidence so I'll skip that. I know inertia can be a powerful thing and I don't really see a path for any Republican to 217. Assuming the resolution to empower McHenry only lasts through January I think it's pretty unlikely. I can see why Democrats vote for such an outcome now to avoid a shutdown but don't see why they would continue to do so. Probably at least five Republicans agree? Or maybe McHenry becomes a de facto compromise candidate since they can't agree on anyone else and he already has the job. Probably it depends a lot on what happens with McHenry as Speaker. Can you motion to vacate the Speaker Pro Tempore the same way you could the Speaker? I have no idea.
Minor (or major?) update on the election for Speaker of the House. Jordan is apparently planning to not have a third vote for Speaker and instead back the plan to empower Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry until January. This comes after some reports that ~30 Republicans would vote against Jordan today, losing significant ground from yesterday when 22 did so.
I'm glad this Speaker contest is probably not going to paralyze us into a government shutdown. I'm unsure what is going to be different about the Speaker race in January though. I'm skeptical that the eight Reps who voted against McCarthy will be convinced to vote for him. After what happened to Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Don Bacon I'm skeptical that Jordan is going to be able to bring his opposition around to him. Maybe it will be Scalise after all? If Jordan's backers can be convinced. Path to 217 for anybody seems pretty murky to me.
This would be the longest period the House has been without a Speaker since 1935.
ETA:
Hearing reports that maybe the resolution empowering McHenry won't pass? Apparently some Members on both sides are now viewing the resolution as a mechanism for Jordan to continue campaigning for the Speakership, which they don't like. Not sure if this will be enough to actually sink such a resolution if brought to the floor but not as foregone a conclusion as I might have thought.
ETA2:
Apparently another Speaker vote at 10am tomorrow? More representatives (Buck and Ferguson) allegedly facing retaliation (not from other Members) for their anti-Jordan votes. Can't imagine this is helping.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I think this is missing some relevant context for those quotes. They were made as a reply to Trump's lawyers arguing that his conviction for sexual assault was not relevant to his parallel defamation case since he was only convicted of sexual assault, not rape. So the question of what, exactly, was encompassed by the term "rape" was relevant in the defamation case. Carroll argued it was used colloquially, Trump argued it was only the specific crime.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
My impression is that Republicans would rather have the formal majority, and so be "in power", rather than actually be able to enact any particular agenda via legislation. There are lots of things (committees) you can operate even if you can't win a vote on the floor. I think there's also a perception that a substantial part of the Republican base support these holdouts and so there would be electoral backlash of unknown magnitude by expelling them. Maybe you get party discipline but if you lose the majority and potentially future majorities by doing so you definitely won't be enacting your agenda.
Welcome to day 2 of the United States House of Representatives quest to elect a Speaker, for the second time this year. The House should be in session shortly. I doubt a Speaker will be elected today. Even Jordan's supporters are saying Jordan will likely get fewer votes today than he did yesterday. This isn't necessarily fatal for his candidacy. McCarthy's votes ebbed and flowed over the course of his election, it will probably depend on the magnitude of the shift.
Some Republicans are also floating the idea of giving Speaker pro tempore McHenry additional Speaker powers temporarily, if Jordan can't win the vote. Presumably this would be to get Congress through another CR or the appropriations process so as to remove that deadline from consideration. Also, as alluded to in the link, not great for the person seeking to become Speaker to have no idea how many votes some motion or resolution would get!
ETA:
At the end of the first ballot results stand at:
212 - Jeffries
199 - Jordan
22 - Other
1 - Not Voting
Jordan loses ground from yesterday and slips below 200 votes.
ETA2:
No more votes today. If this takes a number of votes similar to McCarthy we're going to be here a while...
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
The problem is that, in this scenario as with McCarthy's ouster, the threat would be empty because carrying it out would not actually serve the interests of the people carrying it out. Maybe the threat of doing so would, but it's actual execution wouldn't. Either the 20 Representatives are just expelled from the Republican Conference, in which case they are still Representatives and much less likely to vote Jordan for Speaker, or they are expelled from Congress altogether, in which case Democrats would now have the majority.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2yr ago
I think this is more a limit of KSR's imagination than commentary on the time period. Le Guin wrote The Left Hand of Darkness in 1969. It features a population that ordinarily have an asexual appearance (no secondary sex characteristics) but go into a kind of heat during which they can develop either set of secondary sex characteristics. What set of characteristics they develop isn't even consistent across heats! It's a setting where one's biological sex is very literally contextual, though not necessarily chosen.
More options
Context Copy link