Senate The US Politics 2.0 Discussion Thread

It's okay to thank him for his public service and critique the dumb parts of his trying to hang onto power without a clear succession plan in the party thus kneecapping any legislative resistance to the current (or future) administration.

 

Oh what I was trying to say was that every 2028nDem presidential candidate will be accused of covering up Biden's health issues and the GOP are going hammer the Dems on that over and over again.

 

Oh, I thought all the chatter about Trump talking about Stage 9 cancer was satire, but nope, it's real.

 

Reporter: Sir, there is no stage nine.
Trump: Yeah but Biden's goes to nine!

 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/21/climate/trump-tax-bill-jobs-impacts

Leopards leopards leopards, face face face.

Rinse and repeat.

 

In fairness, the reports mention something about a "Gleason score" of 9 -- and mixing Stage and Gleason Score isn't hugely out of bounds... yes, most normal people would know Stage 1 - 4 for cancer, but mixing up facts in your head for public speaking... seems fine.

 

Another bizarre White house press conference.

 

Worth noting that basically all the symbology the right loves is a flag code violation. All the flag clothing, the merch, the flag punisher decals, all violations. The prominently displayed (thin blue line) bootlicker flag and its variants are basically if the ideal concept of a flag code violation was given physical form. It’s disrespect all the way down.

 

More Trump idiocy ambush press conference bull this time about white south African genocide and mass graves. You aren't going to hit that high like you did with Zelensky Donald! Just a boring repeat now. Is this Musk talking to him about white genocide

Next world leader he does this too they should spit on him and leave

 

You make a good point about it being an issue of the President following federal law, which the president should. But the people I was responding to were making it about emotional reasons for respecting the flag.

 

Agreed, those other points are dumb.

 

It has been about 4 months, and over 1% of the Democrats in Congress have died. At this pace, by the midterms the Demcrats will have dropped from 215 members they started with to fewer than 200.

 

Aren't they replaced if they die?

 

The key phrase here is:

 

No. A special election is called. In the case of a Senator, the Governor can generally appoint a replacement until a special election is held- though some state legislatures have changed that rule in some states - such as Kentucky.

 

TBH, I have a hard time with AOC. I know she's the young blood. And the party needs young blood. But she's just too extreme for me. What I'd like to see is someone who's good with not spending, spending, spending. I like that she's hard-line against Trump. But they can be dedicated to reigning in both Trump and the budget. I swear to you, it's possible.

 

Sure. That's it. I don't want anyone to have anything good. I'm an ogre.

 

What, exactly, is 'too extreme'? You say you want someone that's "good with not spending, spending, spending", and as she pushed for spending cuts in 2021 and criticised Congress spending without justification (and it got news coverage) then she'd fit your bill of being "good with not spending, spending, spending".

 

I hear this critique a lot. But I struggle to understand it. What specifically is extreme?

AOC simply wants everyone on equal footing. She was everyone to have the same basic rights and the ability to succeed. In short, she wants people to be able to actually have a chance at the infamous American dream.

That requires things that, apparently, are controversial- typically because it impacts a cooperation's bottom line- such as affordable prescriptions, Medicare/Medicaid expansions, and more coverage overall.

The "Green New Deal" is another one considered extreme. In reality, it focused on trying not to further inflame climate change and to take measures that would pay off in the long run.

When it comes to immigrants, she is looking for humane treatment and a clear path to citizenship.

I struggle to understand what it is about any of these ideas such that they are being called "extreme"

 

If you repeat lies about democrats being all about "spending, spending, spending", then yes, that's effectively what you are.

The democrats have not been the party of spending for ages. As a matter of fact, they are the ones who usually have to try and fix the budget after Republicans drove it against the wall. Republicans do the same thing every single time: cut help for the citizens, enrich themselves and their big donors with tax breaks, and balloon the debt. Then, after they have lost power, they do a 180 and bemoan debt getting out of hand, and how spending needs to be cut. Spending here obviously referring to money spend on things that help the regular citizens and the poor, not anything that helps enrich the rich. After all, they don't want to see things cut they just implemented.

So in the end, you have republicans taking three steps in one direction, democrats moving one step back to something decent - because more is hard to accomplish after the damage republicans have done - and then republicans take their three steps again. On and on it goes. Doesn't help that the democrats are trying too hard to act by the norms, instead of just implementing what would be right and just. Republicans don't care about that, they just push as hard as it gets for whatever they want, laws and the constitution be damned.

 

Gonna be a weird day since I'm posting something in agreement with Oissan, but this "democrats spend spend spend" mantra that Republicans say almost always means spending on entitlements and other kind of domestic spending that's beneficial for the working class and poor. So when one keeps repeating Republican talking points....they're gonna get called a Republican.

 

Did anyone else see His Majesty’s deranged tweet threatening Bruce Springsteen (and mocking Biden again)?

You can see you already stirred the thread

But I wanted to point out a few things:

1. There’s been propaganda saying she’s more extreme than she actually is on the positions (and she has often tried to work within the system and sometimes find Republican co-sponsors for specific things)

2. By the time 2028 comes, she’ll have been in Congress for a decade (much more than Obama), and be about the age that Teddy Roosevelt and John F Kennedy became president


I think having a responsible budget is important, and you can do that along with the priorities of people like AOC. The budget is also (historically) an act of Congress that requires collaboration and compromise. We have ineffective spending programs to cut or consolidate/replace in order to focus on the priorities and those which help most directly, more fair and responsible taxing of corporations and the rich, doing things like bringing down the cost of Medicare/Medicaid through drug price negotiation and not just spending, and military spending cuts, and all of that can move us into the direction of an eventual surplus while also more directly facing climate change and helping people.

 

Yeah, I don't see what the case is for AOC being extreme. She's argued for taxing the rich at the same rate as during the Eisenhower years, so that's nothing unprecedented or radical. Universal healthcare is something that already exists in every other wealthy democratic country, so also nothing radical. The Green New Deal, I don't know how much spending that entails, but climate change is a pretty big problem we face so that's warranted. If we're worried about the deficit we should stop letting Republicans loot federal coffers to give handouts to the rich,