Last edited:
US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians
- Thread starter SeniorFuckFace
- Start date
-
🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Status
Czechem Republic
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2021
IBR plans have fixed percentages, and its based on discretionary income.
studentaid.gov said:
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2018
Poster is completely misremembering Roots (which in my younger, blue pilled youth I used to watch religiously whenever Family Channel aired it in the early 90s).
In Roots, Kunta Kinte is a muslim african youth who is sold into slavery. After being captured and sold into slavery, he is given a proper "english name" (Toby) and refuses to acknowledge it and keeps trying to escape. Finally, the field overseer snaps and basically has Kunta Kinte strung up by his wrists and whipped in front of all of the other slaves until he's "broken" into renouncing his old name and accepting his American name Toby.
Kunta keeps trying to escape however and only stops due to A. having his foot cut off and B. He marries another slave. Kunta ultimately dies of natural causes, but his daughter Kizzy (while allowed to visit her parents after being sold off for the crime of being secretly taught to read/write and forging a day pass for her lover) vandalizes her father's tombstone, marking out "Toby" and replacing it with "Kunta Kinte".
MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
Wasn't Roots proven to be horseshit later on?
spinal gas chamber
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 19, 2020
Other guy was right. This is temporary salvation for long term fucked because of compounding interest. Go long enough and you never are incentivized to pay it off - you’re better off working low wage jobs and passing the debt to your kids.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
Yeah, Alex Haley made it up.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2018
Depends on a couple of things.
1. Manchin could be a cunt and not be punished for it, but it's more in his best interest to basically force Biden to publicly tell the woke sphere to fuck off and make Biden tell them "I lied when I said I'd put minorities on the court" and pick some middle of the road white guy who is moderate enough that McConnell would have to be insane to pick a fight over putting him on the court; especially since the conservatives already have a majority since he's replacing a liberal judge. Biden needs a win BADLY and Manchin could probably force Biden to run whoever Manchin wants run for the seat AND make Biden publicly tell the woke crowd to fuck off when they throw a tantrum about a white man getting the nomination.
2. If the court is going to nuke Roe Vs Wade from orbit, then the judge being pro-abortion won't mean anything.
3. Manchin probably has a little leyway on a Supreme Court justice nomination since it's a liberal replacing a liberal and the right now currently have a majority on the courts. Power flexing to make Biden publicly say "darkies or spics need not apply" could actually work to his advantage if he keeps another unfuckable black or hispanic woman bitter that she never got to fuck a Chad in her lifetime from joining the Supreme Court.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2019
Jokes aside, Ukranians are used a lot in cybersecurity these days. Pentesting etc. Also cheap tech support that annoys people less than Sanjay in India. They would probably be more productive immigrants than we have brought en masse in decades.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2019
Pretty sure I saw people bringing up Romney regarding SCOTUS. Not sure why, but I'll bite.
I think Romney or "a Romney" is much more preferable to a Sotomayor. At least in the case of a RINO there's still a non-zero chance they'll vote against the lib activists. A Sotomayor would never immediately side with the conservatives unless they get some extremely non-partisan issue like "should we bring back child labor?"
Plus with Romney, the abortion fanclub salt mines would know no depths as being a Mormon he doesn't like dead baby smoothie.
Will never happen though.
I think Romney or "a Romney" is much more preferable to a Sotomayor. At least in the case of a RINO there's still a non-zero chance they'll vote against the lib activists. A Sotomayor would never immediately side with the conservatives unless they get some extremely non-partisan issue like "should we bring back child labor?"
Plus with Romney, the abortion fanclub salt mines would know no depths as being a Mormon he doesn't like dead baby smoothie.
Will never happen though.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2020
I fucking hate Time, so in the interest of not giving them more revenue beyond the click I just gave them as I stumbled on this, see below.
How Republicans Can Block Stephen Breyer’s Replacement
*Idk how to archive sry
With the senate comprised the way it is, I still think that they could get a justice seated fairly quickly. But then I think of the sheer ineptitude that the Brandon Administration has demonstrated thus far, and it seems increasingly likely that they could fuck this up and fail to deliver at a time that’s hugely important to party and ideology. And when that’s weighed against the -splendid- track record that diversity hires and nominees have had for this administration (Exhibit A: The Whore), you can totally visualize them putting some insufferably woke box-checker up to the plate and then some (previously) unidentified ‘it’s-not-racist-cuz-I’m-black” comments/other shit surface that just tank it. And then the republicans sweep and refuse any noms that aren’t to Thomas’ right, effectively holding the seat hostage.
“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up.” -Barack Obama
How Republicans Can Block Stephen Breyer’s Replacement
BY PHILIP ELLIOTT
JANUARY 26, 2022 1:55 PM EST
This article is part of the The DC Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox every weekday.
Within moments of widespread media reports that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer will retire when the current term ends this summer, the Washington parlor game of making a short list of judges President Joe Biden might consider to replace him began. After all, Biden had pledged during the campaign that he would nominate a Black woman to the nine-Justice panel in an historic first.
There’s one major problem facing Biden’s prospects, though: he might not be able to win confirmation for the expected pick. So much of influence in Washington isn’t in the press conferences or performative turns on cable news. The real power comes from mastering the process by which it is transferred, accumulated and defended. And, when it comes to managing a generational shift of power in America’s judicial system, no one has proven more adept than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The Senate is split 50-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie. So far, so good, given past Senators have changed the rules for judicial nominees to get across the finish line with just 51 votes. The so-called nuclear option is meant as a last resort, but with the exception of Chief Justice John Roberts, none of the current conservative Justices cleared a 60-vote benchmark.
But the nuclear option can go into motion only if the Judiciary Committee reports the nomination to the floor, a procedural move that says whether a majority on the committee recommends the full Senate consider the pick. Well, in a little-noticed backroom deal that took more than a month to hammer out, McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer agreed to a power-sharing plan in February that splits committee membership, staffs and budgets in half. (A full nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Research Service regarding the current process for nominees is here.)
Why does this matter? If all 11 Republican members of the Judiciary Committee oppose Biden’s pick and all 11 Democrats back her, the nomination goes inert. (A pretty safe bet in a committee where at least half of the Republican members have White House ambitions of their own.) The nomination doesn’t die, but it does get parked until a lawmaker—historically, the Leader of the party—brings it to the floor for four hours of debate.
A majority of the Senate—51 votes, typically—can then put debate about the issue on the calendar for the next day. But that’s the last easy part. When the potential pick comes to the floor again, it’s not as a nomination. At that point, it’s a motion to discharge, a cloture motion that requires 60 votes. In other words, 10 Republicans would have to resurrect the nomination of someone already blocked in the Judiciary Committee.
Given this is an election year and Republicans have historically shown they’re not willing to give Democrats any wins on the Supreme Court in such a politically charged environment, there’s a good chance that Biden’s nominee spends her summer waiting for invites that never come from GOP lawmakers asking her in for typically cordial and informal coffees.
So, yes, Biden may get to nominate a pick for the Supreme Court. But there’s no guarantee that the full Senate will take it up. After all, McConnell successfully rejected Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016 and waited for Donald Trump to win the White House to install a replacement for Antonin Scalia. McConnell narrowly carved out selected history and dug his heels in that he wouldn’t bring Garland up for a vote. There was simply nothing Democrats could do about it.
And given the rules of the Senate as they stand, a resolute Republican Party can pull a sequel to the Garland nomination. Sure, the Democrats could try to change the power-sharing agreement, but as the debate on voting rights showed us in recent weeks, one hold-out voice among Democrats in favor of the filibuster can tank the plan with little consequence. Which means all of the odds-making about who might get the call from White House Counsel in the coming days, who might get tapped to sherpa the nomination through the Senate or even what this means for the next term are all likely for naught. Republicans, should they want to, can sink this nominee. And if history is predictive, that’s exactly what they’ll do.
Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the daily D.C. Brief newsletter.
JANUARY 26, 2022 1:55 PM EST
This article is part of the The DC Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox every weekday.
Within moments of widespread media reports that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer will retire when the current term ends this summer, the Washington parlor game of making a short list of judges President Joe Biden might consider to replace him began. After all, Biden had pledged during the campaign that he would nominate a Black woman to the nine-Justice panel in an historic first.
There’s one major problem facing Biden’s prospects, though: he might not be able to win confirmation for the expected pick. So much of influence in Washington isn’t in the press conferences or performative turns on cable news. The real power comes from mastering the process by which it is transferred, accumulated and defended. And, when it comes to managing a generational shift of power in America’s judicial system, no one has proven more adept than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The Senate is split 50-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie. So far, so good, given past Senators have changed the rules for judicial nominees to get across the finish line with just 51 votes. The so-called nuclear option is meant as a last resort, but with the exception of Chief Justice John Roberts, none of the current conservative Justices cleared a 60-vote benchmark.
But the nuclear option can go into motion only if the Judiciary Committee reports the nomination to the floor, a procedural move that says whether a majority on the committee recommends the full Senate consider the pick. Well, in a little-noticed backroom deal that took more than a month to hammer out, McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer agreed to a power-sharing plan in February that splits committee membership, staffs and budgets in half. (A full nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Research Service regarding the current process for nominees is here.)
Why does this matter? If all 11 Republican members of the Judiciary Committee oppose Biden’s pick and all 11 Democrats back her, the nomination goes inert. (A pretty safe bet in a committee where at least half of the Republican members have White House ambitions of their own.) The nomination doesn’t die, but it does get parked until a lawmaker—historically, the Leader of the party—brings it to the floor for four hours of debate.
A majority of the Senate—51 votes, typically—can then put debate about the issue on the calendar for the next day. But that’s the last easy part. When the potential pick comes to the floor again, it’s not as a nomination. At that point, it’s a motion to discharge, a cloture motion that requires 60 votes. In other words, 10 Republicans would have to resurrect the nomination of someone already blocked in the Judiciary Committee.
Given this is an election year and Republicans have historically shown they’re not willing to give Democrats any wins on the Supreme Court in such a politically charged environment, there’s a good chance that Biden’s nominee spends her summer waiting for invites that never come from GOP lawmakers asking her in for typically cordial and informal coffees.
So, yes, Biden may get to nominate a pick for the Supreme Court. But there’s no guarantee that the full Senate will take it up. After all, McConnell successfully rejected Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016 and waited for Donald Trump to win the White House to install a replacement for Antonin Scalia. McConnell narrowly carved out selected history and dug his heels in that he wouldn’t bring Garland up for a vote. There was simply nothing Democrats could do about it.
And given the rules of the Senate as they stand, a resolute Republican Party can pull a sequel to the Garland nomination. Sure, the Democrats could try to change the power-sharing agreement, but as the debate on voting rights showed us in recent weeks, one hold-out voice among Democrats in favor of the filibuster can tank the plan with little consequence. Which means all of the odds-making about who might get the call from White House Counsel in the coming days, who might get tapped to sherpa the nomination through the Senate or even what this means for the next term are all likely for naught. Republicans, should they want to, can sink this nominee. And if history is predictive, that’s exactly what they’ll do.
Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the daily D.C. Brief newsletter.
With the senate comprised the way it is, I still think that they could get a justice seated fairly quickly. But then I think of the sheer ineptitude that the Brandon Administration has demonstrated thus far, and it seems increasingly likely that they could fuck this up and fail to deliver at a time that’s hugely important to party and ideology. And when that’s weighed against the -splendid- track record that diversity hires and nominees have had for this administration (Exhibit A: The Whore), you can totally visualize them putting some insufferably woke box-checker up to the plate and then some (previously) unidentified ‘it’s-not-racist-cuz-I’m-black” comments/other shit surface that just tank it. And then the republicans sweep and refuse any noms that aren’t to Thomas’ right, effectively holding the seat hostage.
“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up.” -Barack Obama
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
Unless the nominee has some real baggage, they'll pass with 1 or 2 republican votes. Collins definitely will vote for a black woman, Murkowski might go either way depending on how her primary works out but will probably vote yes to secure democrat votes in November. Romney probably will to just to fuck with Utah voters because he thinks he's untouchable and if he decides to not run in '24 it won't bother him.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
Hasn't it already been speculated that Ketanji Brown Jackson, Beyer's former long time clerk, who is a genuine black lady and a federal judge, is the really obvious pick that should easily get GOP approval since it's basically a lateral move? I mean, it's hard to argue against. She's just Beyer with a palate swap and 20 more years in the chair until her expiration date.
She seems like a lock, and I ain't mad at it.
She seems like a lock, and I ain't mad at it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2020
@Pig Cups
Example Archive of article in question
Go here archive.ph and paste the URL of the thing in the top box.
Example Archive of article in question
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
Don't be so sure. While it remains to be seen if it is decisive, the admin has violated a major line with the RINOs. The RINOs accept a lot of flack for their little arrangements, but never from the top. The rank and file and even their own peers can go after them, but they make their deals with those above them.
Aiden's admin going after them is a violation of that. The whole election law blowback was pretty harsh and solidified RINO votes against it. And they are unlikely to forget about it any more than Manchin is likely to forget about the attack on him.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
What's the current makeup of the House and Senate, again?
If Manchin switches parties, what does that do to their plans on nominating a SCOTUS judge?
If Manchin switches parties, what does that do to their plans on nominating a SCOTUS judge?
- Joined
- May 18, 2020
Would all but kill it in the cradle since they need 51 vote simple majority and RINOs would sense a dying lame duck and not come to the rescue.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
He already has switched parties in all but name though. The voters of West Virginia have his balls in a vice, and his own party leadership hates him for not committing electoral suicide for them. He's as DINO as they come, in other words. And much like how the Dems are the opposite of Reps, being a DINO means he's taking orders from the other side out of principle, not payoff.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2019
I don't know that Manchin would want to switch parties so much as he's found himself in a unique position to torment those who would walk over him any other day. He's not so much a republican ally as he is the enemy of my enemy so to speak. That's the way I figure it anyhow.
CarlosDanger
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2020
If Manchin switched parties, McConnell would become Majority Leader and could stop any nominee from coming to the floor like he did with Garland back in 2016. I'm not sure how this nomination will go since it is a lateral move of a leftist being replaced by a leftist, whereas 2016 it was a leftist potentially replacing the most stalwart Republican on the bench in Scalia. Same for 2020 with Barrett replacing Ginsburg. At the same time it is still a big election year but you also don't want to give shitlibs a rallying cry either.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
I don't know why, but majority doesn't mean what its supposed to mean with it comes to this senate.
Republicans- 50
Democrats- 48
Independent- 2
I thought Dems held the majority leader position because McConnell gave it to them in a deal.
- Status