US Politics June 2021 - "Where we're going, we don't NEED bipartisanship"

Maybe they're saying the bill shouldn't have given opt out power? Idk.

Bernie addressed that, there is some hypothetical mechanism to overrule the guvs

MANCHIN on Biden’s two-track approach: “It’s the only strategy we have—is two track.”

“Reconciliation is inevitable,” he says, indicating that Republicans made it inevitable by opposing tax hikes.

Manchin says he wants “adjustments” to the ‘17 Trump tax cuts.

(via @frankthorp)

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) June 24, 2021

so Manshit IS cool with reconciling the second bill

Trust but verify

Доверяй, но проверяй

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As6y5eI01XE

the compromise isn't just a subset of what progressives (and most of the centrist congressional democratic party) wanted. it's got a bunch of bullshit (or possibly intentional poison pills) like asset recycling.

that plus this (obviously correct!) view from the GOP side makes me suspicious that someone is getting played.

I cannot emphasize this enough: Republicans would be absolutely idiotic to agree to a infrastructure deal without an ironclad assurance that Democrats won't turn around & pass a reconciliation bill with the rest of the $trillions that the GOP just fought to remove from this deal.

— Brian Riedl 🧀 (@Brian_Riedl) June 24, 2021

the bad stuff in the compromise isn't *that* bad relative to trillions of spending. so if they pass this with ten GOP votes and do a big $$$ human infrastructure reconciliation bill and machin/sinema can add "brokered a bipartisan compromise" to their linkedin profiles then ... great! but i'm v v skeptical.

I don't necessarily agree with that tweet. I can totally see the republicans being fine showing that they can compromise and get an infrastructure deal everyone agrees on and then turning around and complaining about how democrats stabbed them in the back with a partisan reconciliation bill.

what has happened in the past 10 years that suggests republicans think it's advantageous for them to show they can compromise with democrats?

if it involves generally popular things like infrastructure and plenty of pork to spread around to their constituents, why not? I wouldn't be surprised that passing up on the first, very popular reconciliation bill ended up hurting them more than helping, and they are less thrilled about not having their names on another bill that will be generally popular. Don't forget that their choices are get their names on a popular infrastructure bill or try to block it and see it pass anyway through reconciliation thereby denying them any credit.

I don't necessarily agree with that tweet. I can totally see the republicans being fine showing that they can compromise and get an infrastructure deal everyone agrees on and then turning around and complaining about how democrats stabbed them in the back with a partisan reconciliation bill.

Sorry, I’m in an airport

Not sure if this is the right thread, but re: Afghanistan... for all this talk of "this is not the fall of Saigon," it's sure looking like the fall of Saigon.

the fall of Saigon was simply the removal of the props supplied by outsiders that had artificially kept it from falling. the outcome of the civil war within Vietnam had been decided long beforehand. Kabul is different only in the details, not the overall dynamic of the war.

Yeah, I guess it's just the cosmetics of it... rushing to get translators and their families to somewhere like Guam; the Taliban seem to be on the march towards Kabul, and their forces are at an all-time high numberically. I don't know if we'll see helicopters on rooftops but I wouldn't be that surprised.

lol

MCCONNELL: "Less than two hours after publicly commending our colleagues and endorsing the bipartisan agreement, the President took the extraordinary step of threatening to veto it... That’s not the way to show you’re serious about getting a bipartisan outcome."

— Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) June 24, 2021

More on Gen. Milley, coincidentally:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/24/politics/bender-book-trump-milley-protests/index.html

"That's how you're supposed to handle these people," Trump told his top law enforcement and military officials, according to Bender. "Crack their skulls!"
Trump also told his team that he wanted
the military to go in and "beat the f--k out" of the civil rights protesters, Bender writes.
"Just shoot them," Trump said on multiple occasions inside the Oval Office, according to the excerpts.
When Milley and then-Attorney General William Barr would push back, Trump toned it down, but only slightly, Bender adds.
"Well, shoot them in the leg—or maybe the foot," Trump said. "But be hard on them!"
The new details about how Milley and a handful of other senior officials were forced to confront Trump's increasingly volatile behavior during the final months of his presidency only add to an already detailed portrait of dysfunction inside the White House at that time.

Well, shoot them in the leg—or maybe the foot," Trump said.

Clasped hands meme with Trump and Biden.

B-but is Trump a fascist, y/n?

ffs OL

Well, shoot them in the leg—or maybe the foot," Trump said. "But be hard on them!"
The new details about how Milley and a handful of other senior officials were forced to confront Trump's increasingly volatile behavior

good thing they kept this quiet. if there anyone else who repeatedly publicly called for civil rights protestors to be shot in the leg, surely their political career would be ruined

dang xp

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-24/wall-street-sees-big-wish-granted-in-biden-s-infrastructure-deal

Selling off the TVA would be very “new FDR.”

Asset recycling -- a policy many credit as being coined in Australia

how did it go there, does anyone remember

Sounds good, don’t want to let those assets go to waste. I am an asset composted myself though

Composter

Computer poster

My programming will never allow me to truthfully refer to myself as a composted

Ok, what is asset recycling and why is it bad?

It means “infrastructure privatization.” I think the bad is self-explanatory.

Deal's in trouble already pic.twitter.com/ewRLfeclqS

— Sam Stein (@samstein) June 25, 2021

oh noes, what if they have to do it all through reconciliation?

well, if that happens the Dems can pass this bill using reconciliation while Biden, Manshit, etc can shake their heads sadly and say, well, bipartisanship, we tried, etc.

Privatizing federal property is fucking awful.

manchin already walking back from backing reconcilliation

It means “infrastructure privatization.” I think the bad is self-explanatory.

The Trump admin wanted to privatize the George Washington Parkway, IIRC, or turn it over to VDOT lol.

It's a very '90s euphemism. Xtreme Asset Recycling

Obama proposed privatizing the TVA at some point.

They may not have the votes to do anything in reconciliation. Not even clear they have the votes for that in the house, much less the senate.

“I'm not voting for reconciliation,” @RepSchrader said, confirming that applies to both the budget resolution & actual reconciliation bill. “I think the reconciliation process is completely unwarranted. I'm not going to vote for $5 trillion of spending." https://t.co/dRHjCKFbn1

— Lindsey McPherson (@lindsemcpherson) June 25, 2021

If asset recycling is like “we privatise parking enforcement on federal property in return for 6tn new spending” I’m probably fine with it in the interests of making a deal.

i knew someone was getting played when that deal was announced yesterday but if i'm honest i just assumed it would be the democrats haha, didn't think they had it in them. (although who knows what happens next.)

There’s lots of complaining coming from offices of the 11 Senate Republicans who endorsed the original infrastructure framework.

Aide to one of those senators: “Demanding that we didn't pass the bipartisan deal unless reconciliation was passed first was never part of the deal.”

— Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) June 25, 2021

If they back out of the bipartisan deal now there are zero consequences for them and nothing continues to get passed benefitting them in the midterms.

If the Democrats thought they were playing anyone and now Lindsey Graham would be bound by his agreement to the deal... hooo boy.

Saying "no takebacks" is not a legally binding contract, unfortunately.

oh i don't think it was smart if this is what the biden wanted/expected to happen. i'm just surprised they even tried it since it's superficial hardball.

but i dunno about zero consequences. can see some of the ConGreSSIonaL NoRmS voters in house/senate being moved toward reconciliation if this collapes.

The police almost never prevent crimes. They just arrest people after the fact. And it's not always the right people. And all too often they kill or physically harm whoever they're trying to arrest. And then they lie about it.

^ that was meant for this thread: Ongoing U.S Police Brutality and Corruption Discussion Thread

What happened is that Republicans were confident that Dems wouldn't pass a 2nd bill, then when Pelosi and Biden started making assurances, they said "no fair you're not allowed to be competent" https://t.co/9JEjQcPYAB

— David Dayen (@ddayen) June 25, 2021

And if this dissolves and we only get a reconciliation bill, maybe the privatization crap gets tossed out and it's better substantively too

— David Dayen (@ddayen) June 25, 2021

seems like hopium

lol Biden already caved

Such political genius.