Update: Laphonza Butler sworn-in as Dianne Feinstein's replacement in the Senate

[Keyser_Soze]

@SaysWho? Will decide what Biden has accomplished.

[SaysWho?]

1 hour ago, Fizzzzle said:

Or... Or ... Or...

 

I don't suck politicians dicks for doing like a half assed job of an eighth of the things they campaigned on.

 

 

This also isn't true, and if you were in office, you wouldn't get everything you want in two years, either.

 

There are legions of people who have spent decades fighting for change, creating and working in big groups such as the National Organization for Women and the ACLU, who have volunteers and put in more hours than you or I have and may ever do, and having met someone who founded the NOW, nobody who does this expects someone to do everything in two years. It's a long battle and grind and it takes ages upon ages.

 

Same deal with infrastructure. Bold is mine, strikethrough for things that are either wrong or misguided.

 

A massive infrastructure overhaul - This one we need to go through a bit, because there's a lot:

• $55 billion to expand clean water access to American households: GOOD (by the way the money for decreasing lead pipes is included in this, they're not separate). I mentioned it separately because it's a BFD.
• Make sure every American has access to high speed internet? $65 billion for what? All of that money is just going to Comcast etc. It won't actually go to the rural areas that need it, which is what the bill is supposed to do. It was never specified how ISP companies will actually be forced to spend that money, if at all.
• Repair our roads and bridges? This is, by FAR, the highest costing part of the project (something like $120 billion), and the vast majority of it is going to go to expanding freeways, which is the opposite of what we should be doing.
• Invest in public transit? Glad to hear it, I just noticed that you want to spend 3 times as much money expanding fucking freeways (the rest of the money for public transit was just a "we won't pull the funding we already promised you" money). If you want to help climate change, the goal should be removing car trips, not encouraging them. $39 billion is set for public transit, with the White House pointing to nearly $90 billion in guaranteed public transit funding.
• 

  Fact Sheet: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal | The White House

  WWW.WHITEHOUSE.GOV

  ---

  Today, Congress passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act), a once-in-a-generation investment in our nation’s infrastructure and competitiveness. For far too long, Washington policymakers have celebrated “infrastructure week” without ever agreeing to build infrastructure. The President promised to work across the aisle to deliver results and rebuild our crumbling...
  $110 is for roads and bridges. Where are you getting that the vast majority is expanding freeways? Much of this goes to repairing aging roads, bridges, and tunnels, to which safety reasons alone are an obvious reason why it's overdue. $5.3 billion replaces public transit vehicles with zero-emission vehicles. 
  

  The US Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Breaking it down

  WWW.MCKINSEY.COM

  ---

  What’s in it? What does it aim to do?
• $17 billion to improve aiports? GOOD. I mean, aiport projects are so expensive that I don't know how far that money will go, but I'll take it. $25 billion. Same link above.
• $66 billion to amtrak? GOOD. Look... I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but is any of that money going to high speed rail? nope. It's all going to fix a completely broken system that has been running on fumes for decades and maybe add a few more lines in that no one will ever use because amtrak sucks so much. Not sure where you're getting that nothing will go to high speed rail. California requested money from the infrastructure law to do just that: 

  NEWS RELEASE: California High-Speed Rail Authority Pursues First Major Award Of New Federal Infrastructure Funds - California High Speed Rail

  HSR.CA.GOV

  ---

  SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The California High-Speed Rail Authority has submitted two applications totaling nearly $1.3 billion in federal grant funding for the nation’s first high-speed rail project.
• Build a national network of EV chargers: BETTER THAN BAD, but we should be focusing more on, like.... not having people need to drive everywhere. If you live in an area powered by gas, your emissions from an EV are barely better than a regular car. That's most of the country, by the way. The energy still has to burn somewhere. Not sure where you're getting this, either. This is straight up wrong:
  
  "Electric vehicles (EVs) have no tailpipe emissions. Generating the electricity used to charge EVs, however, may create carbon pollution. The amount varies widely based on how local power is generated, e.g., using coal or natural gas, which emit carbon pollution, versus renewable resources like wind or solar, which do not. Even accounting for these electricity emissions, research shows that an EV is typically responsible for lower levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) than an average new gasoline car. To the extent that more renewable energy sources like wind and solar are used to generate electricity, the total GHGs associated with EVs could be even lower. (In 2020, renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source." 
  

  Electric Vehicle Myths | US EPA

  WWW.EPA.GOV

  ---

  Facts and myths about electric vehicles.
  Let's keep this going. "For example, when the researchers used the average carbon intensity of America’s power grid, they found that a fully electric vehicle emits about 25 percent less carbon than a comparable hybrid car. But if they ran the numbers assuming the EV would charge up in hydropower-heavy Washington State, they found it would emit 61 percent less carbon than the hybrid. 
  

  Are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars? | MIT Climate Portal

  CLIMATE.MIT.EDU

  ---

  Yes: although electric cars' batteries make them more carbon-intensive to manufacture than gas cars, they more than make up for it by driving much cleaner under nearly any conditions.
  In addition, $65 billion is used to improve resiliency and reliability of the grid and investing in cleaner power, such as hydropower, which would make EVs use less and less carbon.
• Clean energy: Hear's the fun one - it makes it sound like they're spending $65 billion to convert dirty energy to clean energy, but they're not. Most of the money is going to new transmission lines which improve efficiency, it's only about wasting less dirty energy, not making sure we have more clean energy to start with. $108 billion investment will help upgrade the nation’s electricity grid, with thousands of miles of new transmission lines and funds for environmentally friendly smart-grid technology. 
  

  Everything In The $1.2 Trillion Infrastructure Bill: New Roads, Electric School Buses And More

  WWW.FORBES.COM

  ---

  The sweeping new bill includes $110 billion for roads and bridges, $65 billion to equip all Americans with broadband internet, $1 billion for the Great Lakes and much more.
• $50 billion to basically improve FEMA: GOOD
• $21 billion to clean up superfund and brownfield sites: GOOD... if only there was a government body that should have enacted laws years ago that would have significantly penalized companies for creating those sites in the first fucking place... oh, there is? awesome, then why don't we do it now? Oh, right, corporate interests, I forgot that's a non-starter...

 

 

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

13 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

This also isn't true, and if you were in office, you wouldn't get everything you want in two years, either.

 

There are legions of people who have spent decades fighting for change, creating and working in big groups such as the National Organization for Women and the ACLU, who have volunteers and put in more hours than you or I have and may ever do, and having met someone who founded the NOW, nobody who does this expects someone to do everything in two years. It's a long battle and grind and it takes ages upon ages.

 

Broadly speaking, I've felt like you during the Biden administration. I like TYT, but all they do is still complain that Biden isn't doing enough. You have to hold politicians accountable, but they rarely discussed Biden's wins and minimized what those wins were. Where's that awesome Youtube video you once showed of Biden over Walken dancing to all his accomplishments? That was a great showing of the things he's done. And I like that you remind users here (and elsewhere I assume) to relax and enjoy these wins, because they are real wins (in a broken system).

 

However, the bolded parts is where I think people like myself and @Fizzzzle disagree with you. The bolded parts in your quote are entirely the issue. You say: "everything can't get done in two years" but then describe people fighting for simple, sensible, big changes for decades. That inherently proves the system is broken because positive changes should: (1) be universal, everyone should want these changes; and (2) it shouldn't take decades to pull off these changes, it should be a relatively simple process. Getting resistance in politics is normal of course, but when it takes decades of ceaseless fighting to pull off what we've pulled off up to now - I'd call that pretty underwhelming, personally. You seem to understand that politics is so broken you're willing to take the wins we get despite the fact it shouldn't all be THIS HARD. But it is, so in that context these wins feel more like pyrrhic victories than signs of a working democratic republic. Things taking decades of fighting is not a good thing, especially since things like abortion are something that people have been fighting for decades and it's in danger again now - two steps forward, one enormous step back each time. It's like moving in place, and it's not a good feeling. Patting Biden on the back within that context simply feels disingenuous to me, even if there are real victories to point to and knowing he's a much better candidate/choice for the masses than anything on the Republican side and it's not even close.

[stepee]

joe biden ain’t shit about a bitch 

[SaysWho?]

30 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Broadly speaking, I've felt like you during the Biden administration. I like TYT, but all they do is still complain that Biden isn't doing enough. You have to hold politicians accountable, but they rarely discussed Biden's wins and minimized what those wins were. Where's that awesome Youtube video you once showed of Biden over Walken dancing to all his accomplishments? That was a great showing of the things he's done. And I like that you remind users here (and elsewhere I assume) to relax and enjoy these wins, because they are real wins (in a broken system).

 

However, the bolded parts is where I think people like myself and @Fizzzzle disagree with you. The bolded parts in your quote are entirely the issue. You say: "everything can't get done in two years" but then describe people fighting for simple, sensible, big changes for decades. That inherently proves the system is broken because positive changes should: (1) be universal, everyone should want these changes; and (2) it shouldn't take decades to pull off these changes, it should be a relatively simple process. Getting resistance in politics is normal of course, but when it takes decades of ceaseless fighting to pull off what we've pulled off up to now - I'd call that pretty underwhelming, personally. You seem to understand that politics is so broken you're willing to take the wins we get despite the fact it shouldn't all be THIS HARD. But it is, so in that context these wins feel more like pyrrhic victories than signs of a working democratic republic. Things taking decades of fighting is not a good thing, especially since things like abortion are something that people have been fighting for decades and it's in danger again now - two steps forward, one enormous step back each time. It's like moving in place, and it's not a good feeling. Patting Biden on the back within that context simply feels disingenuous to me, even if there are real victories to point to and knowing he's a much better candidate/choice for the masses than anything on the Republican side and it's not even close.

 

You don't disagree with me. But what I hope the system would ideally be and what it is are different, and the pace of progress the past two years has been exceptional. I'm not going to poo poo on progress because of my utopian vision of America and speed in which I want it to happen.

 

"Things aren't happening fast enough" is how we got into 2016, with people staying home because "it doesn't matter" and the notion that both parties are the same. I fully, unapologetically place some of the blame on them, because I know these people, and they're freaking out over Roe v Wade. I've told them point-blank, "None of this was a secret. The Supreme Court and holding Scalia's seat hostage were in the open. Trump said he'd elect anti-choice judges and point-blank said Roe v Wade would get overturned. Hillary said she would elect pro-choice judges. Choice was there, you had the power, you fucked up. Now get to work." And I will never, EVER be sympathetic toward people who still tout that stupid both sidesy bullshit that helped lead us to that. We want a better party? We have a primary system to get our kind of Democrat. And we don't have to be keyboard warriors; we can improve our community without waiting for government! How many people here are trying to improve their community to make it better? Any of you want to join my scholarship board that right now is geared toward African Americans? I'm the sole pasty white guy on it.

 

The point that I think gets lost in this: democracy is a messy system, and 2016 onward should have taught us that we have to not just progress, but also keep the progress in place because the same system that gave us those rights can be used to reverse them. People who are anti-abortion thought the 50-year fight took too long. And that's what continues to make 2016 a travesty -- the same system that can make progress slow can also make reversing progress slow. We had all the power in the world to keep our foot on the pedal. Now we're actually getting out of it -- outpacing conservatives on judges, codifying rights into laws, enacting climate change, helping working class people via unionizing and student debt forgiveness, and helping people get clean, unleaded water. We have more work to do. LFG!! 

[Fizzzzle]

Sorry @SaysWho? I still haven't had time to read through your rebuttal, but my general point, which @Greatonesherementioned is that I can both be happy about the accomplishments that have been made while still being incredibly pissed off about the things that haven't happened. They're not mutually exclusive. If the democrats actually focused on what actually helps THE PEOPLE and told their corporate donors to go fuck themselves the next time they got into power (something that both Roosevelts did to one degree or another during their administrations*), the Republican party would be eliminated in a single election cycle. If I, some idiot on the internet, knows that, then that means they do, too.

 

You know why the culture war shit bothers me so much and why I can be dismissive of it, even though I obviously think civil rights are important? Because the culture war shit is all about "us" vs. "them." If the democrats actually focused on policy that helps everyone, the culture war gets put on the back burner because it turns out everyone likes having higher wages, legal weed, sick days, maternal leave and any other liberal agenda you can think of. It's why republicans have basically given up on repealing Obamacare. When you actually try to break the capitalist system even a little bit, everyone's lives get better.

 

That's what pisses me off so much. People act like it's this monumental task that takes a hundred years to complete when it shouldn't have to be. Even Jon Stewart said that while he was dealing with people in Washington with the 9/11 responder stuff, it's not that hard to make progress when you find people who work in good faith, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on. The problem is so many people in Congress do not act in good faith. Anything they do that actually benefits people is either incidental or comes with so much baggage that it negates the original purpose, because pleasing their corporate daddies is always priority #1.

 

*It should be noted FDR basically created the military industrial complex, but I don't blame him for not recognising that at the time. Building an entire economy based on military production even before the US entered the war was kind of uncharted territory. Spain had dabbled with it during WW1. They didn't get involved in the war because 1) they had no skin in the game, and 2) because they were selling weapons to both sides. The difference is that the US went fuckin' a STRAIGHT from WW2 to the Cold War (in fact the Cold War had already started before WW2 was even over), so the US never had any reason to de-escalate their weapons production. And now our defense budget is like $850 billion per year, the vast majority of which goes to contractors who get fucking riiiiiiich, dawg.

[BloodyHell]

16 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

Sorry @SaysWho? I still haven't had time to read through your rebuttal, but my general point, which @Greatonesherementioned is that I can both be happy about the accomplishments that have been made while still being incredibly pissed off about the things that haven't happened. They're not mutually exclusive. If the democrats actually focused on what actually helps THE PEOPLE and told their corporate donors to go fuck themselves the next time they got into power (something that both Roosevelts did to one degree or another during their administrations*), the Republican party would be eliminated in a single election cycle. If I, some idiot on the internet, knows that, then that means they do, too.

 

You know why the culture war shit bothers me so much and why I can be dismissive of it, even though I obviously think civil rights are important? Because the culture war shit is all about "us" vs. "them." If the democrats actually focused on policy that helps everyone, the culture war gets put on the back burner because it turns out everyone likes having higher wages, legal weed, sick days, maternal leave and any other liberal agenda you can think of. It's why republicans have basically given up on repealing Obamacare. When you actually try to break the capitalist system even a little bit, everyone's lives get better.

 

That's what pisses me off so much. People act like it's this monumental task that takes a hundred years to complete when it shouldn't have to be. Even Jon Stewart said that while he was dealing with people in Washington with the 9/11 responder stuff, it's not that hard to make progress when you find people who work in good faith, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on. The problem is so many people in Congress do not act in good faith. Anything they do that actually benefits people is either incidental or comes with so much baggage that it negates the original purpose, because pleasing their corporate daddies is always priority #1.

 

*It should be noted FDR basically created the military industrial complex, but I don't blame him for not recognising that at the time. Building an entire economy based on military production even before the US entered the war was kind of uncharted territory. Spain had dabbled with it during WW1. They didn't get involved in the war because 1) they had no skin in the game, and 2) because they were selling weapons to both sides. The difference is that the US went fuckin' a STRAIGHT from WW2 to the Cold War (in fact the Cold War had already started before WW2 was even over), so the US never had any reason to de-escalate their weapons production. And now our defense budget is like $850 billion per year, the vast majority of which goes to contractors who get fucking riiiiiiich, dawg.

Eisenhower warned everyone.

[Fizzzzle]

7 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

Eisenhower warned everyone.

Eisenhower watched it happen first hand. He was essentially a logistics officer and military politician. He knew better than anyone. By the time he warned everyone, that ball had already become unstoppable.

 

That's not to blame him for it, either, if I'm not being clear enough.

[SaysWho?]

18 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

Sorry @SaysWho? I still haven't had time to read through your rebuttal,

 

 

It's fine, dude; it's the weekend.

 

18 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

but my general point, which @Greatonesherementioned is that I can both be happy about the accomplishments that have been made while still being incredibly pissed off about the things that haven't happened. They're not mutually exclusive. If the democrats actually focused on what actually helps THE PEOPLE and told their corporate donors to go fuck themselves the next time they got into power (something that both Roosevelts did to one degree or another during their administrations*), the Republican party would be eliminated in a single election cycle. If I, some idiot on the internet, knows that, then that means they do, too.

 

 

You know why the culture war shit bothers me so much and why I can be dismissive of it, even though I obviously think civil rights are important? Because the culture war shit is all about "us" vs. "them." If the democrats actually focused on policy that helps everyone, the culture war gets put on the back burner because it turns out everyone likes having higher wages, legal weed, sick days, maternal leave and any other liberal agenda you can think of. It's why republicans have basically given up on repealing Obamacare. When you actually try to break the capitalist system even a little bit, everyone's lives get better.

 

That's what pisses me off so much. People act like it's this monumental task that takes a hundred years to complete when it shouldn't have to be. Even Jon Stewart said that while he was dealing with people in Washington with the 9/11 responder stuff, it's not that hard to make progress when you find people who work in good faith, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on. The problem is so many people in Congress do not act in good faith. Anything they do that actually benefits people is either incidental or comes with so much baggage that it negates the original purpose, because pleasing their corporate daddies is always priority #1.

 

*It should be noted FDR basically created the military industrial complex, but I don't blame him for not recognising that at the time. Building an entire economy based on military production even before the US entered the war was kind of uncharted territory. Spain had dabbled with it during WW1. They didn't get involved in the war because 1) they had no skin in the game, and 2) because they were selling weapons to both sides. The difference is that the US went fuckin' a STRAIGHT from WW2 to the Cold War (in fact the Cold War had already started before WW2 was even over), so the US never had any reason to de-escalate their weapons production. And now our defense budget is like $850 billion per year, the vast majority of which goes to contractors who get fucking riiiiiiich, dawg.

 

Democrats have focused a lot on lowering home insurance prices, that are going up $3k $4k a year in Florida, in a way no other state is, and they got trounced by a governor who showed no leadership on it and instead focused on "woke" and trans and abortion. It's not always as easy as, "Just focus on economics." I'm not going to say there's nothing to that (more on that later), but we are way too polarized to eliminate Republicans in a single cycle. It took a while for programs such as Medicare and the ACA to become popular, and one they do, they're not even associated with the party that pushed for them. How many people are aware that FDR and LBJ and Democratic congresses gave them to us? LBJ passed and signed Voting Rights, Civil Rights, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Tell me how long Republicans were out of power after he did that? Democrats fell out of favor with the south, the Republican president was impeached and had to resign in the 1970s but won reelection easily before that happened, and then the Reagan Revolution happened in the 1980s. I wish it was as easy as, "Just get this stuff done!"

 

And the thing is, Democrats did spend most of their first two years focusing on economic issues, climate issues, etc., with social issues popular ones such as protecting gay marriage and starting the process of reclassifying marijuana. They had the best showing of an incumbent party in decades and increased their power in state governments; maybe there's something to their strategy. You still can't ignore people hurt by cultural issues because why should they vote for you if you're not their ally?

 

What gets me is you don't seem to be aware of what's been happening! You say you can be happy but want more -- we all want more. But some of the stuff, like being easier to unionize, you straight-up think didn't happen. That's not something up for debate; he took over the National Labor Relations Board and he's been making it much easier for unions to form, hence why more unions are forming.

[Jason]

Durbin is such a cuck

 

[Jason]

[Ricofoley]

Just looked up what the "Fischer Trucking Emissions CRA" is and it's exactly what you'd think. Just lets trucks dump out a bunch more smog emissions. Cool.

[Fizzzzle]

If Katie Porter doesn't primary Feinstein I'm going to riot. I'm not sure against who or what, like maybe it will be against my local taco place for having too much sinew in my lengua, but I'll figure something out.

[marioandsonic]

Biden can still veto it, right?

 

 

 

 

 

Right?!

[SaysWho?]

49 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

If Katie Porter doesn't primary Feinstein I'm going to riot. I'm not sure against who or what, like maybe it will be against my local taco place for having too much sinew in my lengua, but I'll figure something out.

You’ll be happy to know Feinstein isn’t running for re-election and Porter is in the primary race.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, marioandsonic said:

Biden can still veto it, right?

 

 

 

 

 

Right?!

 

 

It remains a constitutional power of his.

[Ricofoley]

Yeah, it's already been announced that he''s gonna veto it.

[TUFKAK]

Lol

 

Role coal liburl cucks 

[MarSolo]

Gotta love that the biggest state in the union has only one senator representing it while a state like North Dakota that has the popular of a roadside diner has two.

[Spork3245]

9 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

You’ll be happy to know Feinstein isn’t running for re-election and Porter is in the primary race.

I believe Porter and Schiff are the current front runners, correct?

[SaysWho?]

1 hour ago, Spork3245 said:

I believe Porter and Schiff are the current front runners, correct?

So far yeah.

[Fizzzzle]

23 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

You’ll be happy to know Feinstein isn’t running for re-election and Porter is in the primary race.

Very nice.

[Jason]

[Jason]

lol

 

[thewhyteboar]

They can’t even drag her out to click a button that says aye? She must have died months ago. 

[Ricofoley]

Not sure why the news media has to keep up with the pretense that these statements are being written by Feinstein herself.

[Jason]

52 minutes ago, Ricofoley said:

Not sure why the news media has to keep up with the pretense that these statements are being written by Feinstein herself.

 

access, both to Feinstein's staff and Congress in general

[BloodyHell]

On 4/26/2023 at 11:11 PM, MarSolo said:

Gotta love that the biggest state in the union has only one senator representing it while a state like North Dakota that has the popular of a roadside diner has two.

The biggest state has two senators, and it’s time for democrats to demand she resign. This is their fault. Even worse is this “ageism” bs. Nobody wants her gone because she is old, they want her gone because she has dementia.

[Jwheel86]

27 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

The biggest state has two senators, and it’s time for democrats to demand she resign. This is their fault. Even worse is this “ageism” bs. Nobody wants her gone because she is old, they want her gone because she has dementia.

 

Even disability rights people are saying she's gotta go. 

[Nokra]

7 hours ago, BloodyHell said:

The biggest state has two senators, and it’s time for democrats to demand she resign. This is their fault. Even worse is this “ageism” bs. Nobody wants her gone because she is old, they want her gone because she has dementia.

 

Oh good, so we prefer being dementist to ageist. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, Nokra said:

Oh good, so we prefer being dementist to ageist. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would be good of Dixie Dianne got visited by a dementor doe.

[Jason]

 

 

Feinstein returning to Senate after prolonged absence due to illness

WWW.AXIOS.COM

---

The 89-year-old senator is flying back to D.C. on Tuesday after two months recovering from shingles in California.

 

[Fizzzzle]

I feel like, even though I've never met her, that I know exactly what she smells like.

[BloodyHell]

3 hours ago, Jason said:

 

 

Feinstein returning to Senate after prolonged absence due to illness

WWW.AXIOS.COM

---

The 89-year-old senator is flying back to D.C. on Tuesday after two months recovering from shingles in California.

 

Will she know where she is?

[CayceG]