She wants to be primaried.SInema claims she is for increasing minimum wage yet voted no on including it here. She also claims wanting to do this in a stand alone bill. She also knows it would take 60 to pass without ending the fillibuster which she is against.
Trying to have it both ways.
SInema claims she is for increasing minimum wage yet voted no on including it here. She also claims wanting to do this in a stand alone bill. She also knows it would take 60 to pass without ending the fillibuster which she is against.
Trying to have it both ways.
I saw Manchin on MTP and he got asked about HR1 and the answer is basically give the GOP a chance to obstruct it and he'd move it under reconciliation if need be (it will).
So practically that involves changing the Byrd Rule or overruling the parliamentarian. It's a roundabout weakening of the filibuster while he can keep saying that he supports the filibuster.
I agree that those incarcerated should have the right to vote, but I don't want it in this bill. I don't want anything in there to give the repugs a "populist" argument against the bill. I don't want them to be able to argue that the bill gives people like Ted Bundy the right to vote. The arguments for it make sense, but typical voters respond to those kinds of emotional appeals. This bill is too important to jeopardize by giving them any sort of argument in opposition that might resonate with voters.
This would be an excellent way to square that circle. It would also be horrible optics for Republicans to have Rand Paul or whoever heroically trying to stay on his feet in hour 32 of trying to make sure it’s not easier for Americans to vote.
That amendment would have sunk the entire relief bill after the parlimentarian ruled that it couldn't be included under reconciliation rules. It was a stupid self-owning stunt for a certain senator to propose the amendment knowing it couldn't be included, which then put some Democrats on the spot to have to help sink it to keep the entire relief bill moving forward under reconciliation.SInema claims she is for increasing minimum wage yet voted no on including it here. She also claims wanting to do this in a stand alone bill. She also knows it would take 60 to pass without ending the fillibuster which she is against.
Trying to have it both ways.
This would be an excellent way to square that circle. It would also be horrible optics for Republicans to have Rand Paul or whoever heroically trying to stay on his feet in hour 32 of trying to make sure it’s not easier for Americans to vote.
No, the only reason it fell short is because it was a waste of time when you have 2 Democrats who won't vote for it, and non of the Republican's want it. $10 to $11 an hour is a slap in the face and a joke, as anyone working 40 hours a week should make more than 22k a year (before taxes).Sinema often annoys me but the amendment fell well short. There isn't support in the caucus for $15 let alone to circumvent the filibuster to do it. I'm not sure that would be true at $10 or $11. Ultimately if the caucus decided on one of those and that they're willing to do what it takes she'll fall in line.
No, the only reason it fell short is because it was a waste of time when you have 2 Democrats who won't vote for it, and non of the Republican's want it. $10 to $11 an hour is a slap in the face and a joke, as anyone working 40 hours a week should make more than 22k a year (before taxes).
Indeed, the asshole senator from LA said "if this passes we'll never win again", rather than craft policy's that actually help people it's better to keep a lot of them from voting in the 1st place.this wont pass.
Republicans love their vote suppression, its the only way they can win.
Yes, because some voted no because they knew it was a waste of time.. Why vote yes for something that YOU KNOW will never pass because 2 of the people needed have already said they would not support it? it's not that hard to figure out.The $15/hr amendment fell like 10 votes short from the Ds. Manchin says he'll do $11/hr so just do that for now and come back later for more in 2023. Given where a lot of states are now it will exert quite a bit of upwards wage pressure nationally.
Advantage of being the majority. Any rule can be changed.Manchin on the filibuster on MeetThePress: - “If you want to make it a little bit more painful, make him stand there and talk, I'm willing to look at any way we can. But I'm not willing to take away the involvement of the minority.”
I'm skeptical that the "make them talk it out” approach would in any way deter Republicans from using the filibuster. For one thing, any filibuster is going to have the support of almost the entire Republican conference. There would be no issue with Republicans setting up a rotation allowing for the filibustering Senator to “yield for a question” that’s actually a two-hour oration allowing the filibustering Senator to take a nap, use the bathroom, etc.
And for most Republican Senators, being “forced to talk” about why they oppose whatever bill is being filibustered isn’t a threat – it’s a publicity goldmine. Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton and others would be falling all over themselves to denounce at length whatever socialist/atheist affront to American values the Democrats are attempting to pass. The fact of it being a “filibuster” will only increase its value to them being portrayed on Fox News as standing strong against the surging tide of communism.
And meanwhile, nothing else can get done. No votes on Biden executive branch nominees, no votes on judges, etc. Since Republicans have no agenda besides obstruction for the next four years, that will be just fine with them.
"Andrew" "Senior Political Analyst"
Is Andrew so well known he doesn't need a last name? Like Cher or Madonna?
Like you?The Senior Political Analyst title is literally a joke. ...
I haven't watch it yet but the title "Nancy Peolsi's For the People Act" makes it likely biased.Going to post this here on a perspective analysis of the bill.
I haven't watch it yet but the title "Nancy Peolsi's For the People Act makes it likely biased.
BTW - HR-1 was sponsored by John Sarbanes and originally named after the late John Lewis. We shall see if my instinct is correct.
I'll answer that when I watch later. Since she did not author the bill technically it isn't hers. I suspect "my bill" was references her personal shepherding it through the House but we'll see.Since Nancy called it that literally, not sure how it is biased.
Summary of what it says so I can decide if it’s worth my time?Going to post this here on a perspective analysis of the bill.