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
1mo ago
I mean, what does it mean to be responsible for shutting down the government? There was a procedural path for Democrats to end the shutdown (by voting with Republicans). There was a procedural path for Republicans to end the shutdown (without any Democrat votes). There is no path for Democrats to unilaterally end the shutdown (being the minority party). What is the sense in which Democrats are responsible that does not also apply to Republicans?
Feel like this is where I run into the limits of my government research ability and it is frustrating. As best I can tell the legislation being referenced here is H.R. 5371. At least, the last listed action is that the Senate agreed to cloture 60-40 and the breakdown of Senators matches those described. However this bill, per section 106, seems like it only funds the government through November 21st except for specifically named operations. This is in contrast to the Politico article saying it funds most programs for the rest of the year and some only into January. There are limited references to January in that bill and only one to January 31st. Is there some further piece of legislation I need to reference? I also don't see any amendments in the bill history so it's not clear to me why it would need to go back to the House.
ETA:
I think this is the text of the amended HR 5371 that was passed, which does seem to fund through January 2026. Apparently there is also a companion bill.
On the politics side I think this was dumb. The polling I'm aware of seemed to show Democrats winning this fight in the popular consciousness. "It's bad when people's healthcare premiums go up hundreds of dollars" is a very straightforward message. Republicans nuking the filibuster also would have been a great outcome. If not immediately, then in the future. Feels like the closest thing to a concession is the entirely-symbolic later vote on extending the subsidies. Bad political instincts all around.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Huh? Democrats (assuming this means voters) are mad that eight Senators voted to end the government shutdown with what seem like no material concessions.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
There is no contradiction between those two. Republicans could have, at any time, used their Senate majority to end the shutdown by over-ruling the parliamentarian and invoking cloture with less than 60 votes. What actually happened is that eight Democrats voted for cloture so that Republicans didn't have to do that.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Even more recently than that! The big split was only really post-Dobbs. It turns out that once you have skin in the game (abortion can actually be criminalized) people change their mind. I know the phrase arises in the abortion context but I think it is also a synecdoche for a certain kind of politics towards women generally. How many Democrats are talking about how women shouldn't be working outside the home? That we should repeal the 19th amendment? That women's participation in the economy or public life has been bad for society? There is a certain kind of politics that believes women ought to be in positions of legal, social, and economic subordination to men and it is heavily concentrated among Republicans.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Wanting a mate who is already established is reasonable from the female perspective, but also means that in modern society you wind up with either 18 year-olds marrying 30 year-olds, or 30-year olds marrying 30 year-olds. It would indeed be better for 20 year-olds to marry 22 year-olds and then build a life together.
Do you have a source for this data?
According to Pew age gap relationships where the husband is 3+ years older than the wife were much more common historically than they are today. At the time this article was written about 60% of marriages featured a husband that was 3 or more years older than his wife. Only 35% of marriages featured spouses whose age was within 2 years of each other. Those numbers are 40% and 51% respectively as of 2022. It turns out when women have control over who they marry, rather than being coerced by threat of economic destitution, they tend to prefer men around their own age.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Republicans are the party of "your body my choice" and Democrats... aren't. It's not complicated.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
If 60ish percent of men vote one way, and 80ish percent of women vote the other, and win, seems like a problem if the men who are in that 60% are ALSO the ones who would be tasked with carrying out/enforcing the laws they expressly disagree with.
What are you envisioning here? Are police going to refuse to make arrests for crimes? What crimes? Prosecutors refuse to file charges? Judges going to toss cases? Are you under the impression all parts of the justice system today think every law they enforce is just? I am very skeptical that is the case.
If fewer than half of the young men buy-in to the ideal of gender equality, what happens to a Democracy that tries to enforce gender equality?
What do you think is going to happen?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
So in terms of 'trends,' What do you think eventually happens if young women continue voting for Democrats/lefties in droves... and have extreme intolerance for anyone who doesn't, while young men tack further right?
Complete Democrat political dominance? 80+% of women consistently voting for Democratic party candidates would be a nigh insurmountable electoral advantage.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
I am a little surprised by the lack of gender polarization in those numbers, except the 18-29 group. I would have thought it would be a cross-age phenomenon.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Virginia's statewide elections are always off-presidential-year, by state law. Republicans swept all three VA races I mentioned above in the last general election in 2021. It is hardly the case that, at least in recent history, Republicans are incapable of winning statewide offices in VA general elections.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Can you say more about why Earle-Sears was not a serious candidate? She was elected Lieutenant Governor in 2021.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
The VA AG race had some uncertainty after some controversial texts from Jay Jones came to light. The GA wins by the Democratic party candidates are the first time D's have won a statewide state position (as opposed to federal) in 20 years. Sherrill was probably the favorite in the NJ Governor race but it's also the first time the same party has had a member elected governor for a third consecutive time in decades. The NYC mayoral race had been closely watched (at least in my political circles) due to disgraced ex-governor Andrew Cuomo's attempt to run for the seat. First in the Dem primary, then as a third party.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Who else up watching election results? As of the time of this writing Decision Desk has called all of:
-
The Virginia governor race in favor of Abigail Spanberger (D).
-
The Virginia lieutenant governor race in favor of Ghazala Hashmi (D and the first Muslim woman elected to statewide office).
-
The Virginia Attorney General race in favor of Jay Jones (D lmao).
-
The New Jersey governor race in favor of Mickie Sherrill (D).
-
The NYC mayoral race for Zohran Mamdani (D, projecting a majority of the vote too lmao).
-
Both statewide Georgia Public Service Commissioner races for the Democratic candidates.
Polls are still open in California so no word yet there on the redistricting ballot measure. In other Jay Jones news the house delegate who leaked his texts is on track to lose her re-election, as part of dems winning a trifecta in the Virginia government.
The county by county level results I've seen show pretty much all of the above running ahead of Harris and Spanberger even running ahead of Biden in 2020. Is this indicative of what we might see going forward? Dems had previously overperformed in special elections this year but this is the closest to a general until next years actual federal elections. If these trends hold up not a good sign for Republicans!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Maybe I am typical minding too much but I think if you tried describing these "tensions" to people who support both the things you identify as in tension they would come off as non-sequiturs.
Trans — Palestine
Violence against women — Palestine
My impression is that most of the people celebrating something like "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" likely believe there is an ethnic cleansing, if not genocide, going on in the West Bank and Gaza. Carried out by some combination of the Israeli government and private settlers. I would be surprised if their objections to this state of affairs evaporated on learning that Palestinians were anti-trans or misogynistic. The two things do not seem connected to each other. I don't think people's objection to Israel's treatment of Palestinians is premised on those Palestinians having progressive politics, though I am open to being wrong about this.
Trans — violence against women
When people are thinking of something like "Transgender Awareness Week" they are thinking about struggles trans people have accessing healthcare. Or discrimination they might face in employment in housing. Similarly when people are thinking of "International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women" they are probably thinking of the elimination of, like, intimate partner violence. Assault by strangers. "Male rapists claiming to be trans to access women in prison" are just not salient to either groups conception of what the events are about.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Maybe I'm confused. In your comment you referred to no-fault divorce as a political solution to a personal problem. My contention is that it is a political solution to a political problem. The circumstances under which one can exit marriage, and the details of marriage as a matter of law, being themselves political creations. Similarly rape shield laws. The rules of evidence for courts being political creations.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
What are the personal problems that no-fault divorce is a political solution to? In the absence of such laws it is the state compelling you to stay in a relationship you'd rather end. Is thinking a legal arrangement is unjust a "personal" problem? Same for rape shield laws, which concern the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1mo ago
Apologies, but this is a personal interest of mine. "Filibuster" commonly refers to two different rules of the Senate, with different implications.
The "talking filibuster" comes from Senate Rule XIX 1(a):
When a Senator desires to speak, he shall rise and address the Presiding Officer, and shall not proceed until he is recognized, and the Presiding Officer shall recognize the Senator who shall first address him. No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall first address the Presiding Officer, and no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.
Importantly, a talking filibuster can delay the business of the Senate no matter how large the majority of Senators that want to proceed.
The "filibuster" that blocks most legislation is not the threat of a "talking filibuster" but rather Senate Rule XXII. I am not going to quote the whole thing here (it's very long) but the short version is that to force the Senate to move to actually voting on passing a piece of legislation you need 3/5ths of Senators to agree to a motion to do so. Implementing a filibuster under this rule just means having two members present on the floor of the Senate and, like, move to adjourn over and over again. That motion would be privileged over any motion to vote on a bill and the only way to stop it being made would be it invoke cloture, which requires the 3/5ths vote threshold.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2mo ago
Maybe it is but morality does not require "never do a treason." The founding of America was substantially treason against the British crown and they were right to do that.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2mo ago
All things that are unethical share the trait of being unethical, as I have been consistent about. That does not entail that they share particular factual similarities, such as involving slavery. That was a leap you made.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2mo ago
What do you think moral legitimacy consists of? How would it be different from what I said?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2mo ago
Equating "I don't like X" and "X is unethical" seems like a skill issue on your part. There are plenty of things I don't like that are not unethical for people to do.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2mo ago
They are out of accordance with ethical principles, of course. Do you think returning fugitive slaves was the right thing to do?
This is a very strange response. I think, and have long thought, ending the filibuster would be a good thing. I think it is singularly responsible for the erosion of Congress's role in our politics and has been a boon to the growth of presidential power. Even if the Senate did abolish the filibuster that would not come close to making Trump a king. The filibuster was not a significant impediment to Congress for the first 200+ years of our nations history. It's only in the last ~20 or so that it's seriously become a problem.
More options
Context Copy link