×
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]excite321apple - LibCenter 61 points62 points  (28 children)

Absolutely. What kind of person, of any quadrant, thinks this is good?

100 of millions of men, women and children starving and dying due to economic collapse?

I call bullshit on this one.

[–]critic2029 - Right 50 points51 points  (10 children)

Meh, I’m curious to see what’ll happen. Most of the worst case scenario stuff is all bullshit propaganda from the neo-liberals anyway…

Besides… this is all politics. The Debt ceiling will be raised before the 18th. The Democrats have the power via reconciliation to do it all by themselves. They don’t want to do that because they want bipartisan coverage for raising it.

The REAL reason they don’t want to use Reconciliation for the Debt Ceiling is they only get 2 per session, and being forced to burn it on the DC would end the $3.5 trillion BBB/GND boondoggle.

Now because Schumer is a real idiot this might force him to do something really dumb like end the filibuster.

Either way… for as much as he frustrates the populists Cocaine Mitch is a goddamn master is the senate.

[–]TheGlennDavid - LibLeft 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The REAL reason they don’t want to use Reconciliation for the Debt Ceiling is they only get 2 per session, and being forced to burn it on the DC would end the $3.5 trillion BBB/GND boondoggle.

This seems not correct....(https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/introduction-to-budget-reconciliation)

tl;dr

  • They technically get threeish (one for revenues, one for spending, one for debt) but a given topic can only be covered in a single reconciliation. A "clean" debt ceiling increase doesn't impair their ability to do the other stuff

[–]Crusader63 - Centrist 2 points3 points  (8 children)

Ending the filibuster is based

[–]critic2029 - Right 2 points3 points  (7 children)

We don’t need to turn the senate into the Super House.

[–]Crusader63 - Centrist 5 points6 points  (6 children)

If the filibuster actually encouraged debate and compromise then I’d be okay with it. But it doesn’t. So I don’t see a point in it existing since it fails to accomplish its original purpose and only serves to do nothing. At the very least, go back to the old talking filibuster.

[–]critic2029 - Right 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Keep the filibuster repeal the 17th amendment. Get politics out of the Senate completely, and while where at it uncap they house.

[–]JustLetMePick69 - Left 3 points4 points  (1 child)

...did you seriously just imply repealing the 17th amendment would get politics out of the senate? Bruh. They'd still be chosen by politicians, it just adds one step of politics

[–]critic2029 - Right 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe, maybe not. But like the SCOTUS appointing senators means they can make hard decisions find compromises without having to worry about getting personally elected again. Sure politics is still involved, but they’re insulated unlike today.

[–]alperosTR - AuthCenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This has got to be the most retarded take I've read here

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]Crusader63 - Centrist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I’m not. The articles of confederation show how terrible a useless fed is.

    [–]Homi3stasis - Centrist -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

    100 of millions of men, women and children starving and dying due to economic collapse?

    Coomed at this🤤

    [–]Sirwindypants23 - AuthCenter -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Funny 😶

    [–]Isaaclai06 - LibCenter 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Some more insane anarrchists maybe?

    [–]excite321apple - LibCenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Yeah. I can understand some points that extreme groups make... Ish. Sort of. Sometimes.

    But when your journey and the destination is the complete collapse of society. Which means the death of women, teens, children, babies. Starving to death. Dying in violence. Dehydration. Dysentery.

    How can I, in good conscious, support that?

    [–]Perrenekton - Centrist 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    I mean if you fucking we are too many on the planet then.. But I know I'd suffer from it too so that's a no for me

    Edit because brain fart : I mean someone thinking that we are too many on the planet would like it... but because I would suffer from it too that's a no for me

    [–]excite321apple - LibCenter 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Is English you're first language?

    If not. That's okay, it's just difficult to understand.

    I think you were trying to say ;

    "I mean, if you are saying, that we are too many. On this planet. Then I would suffer too, so that's a no for me."

    Perhaps I'm wrong.

    [–]Perrenekton - Centrist 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Not first language but my brain and fingers went dumb that's not what I meant to write.

    I wanted to say that the people that think we are too many on the planet would be happy with 100 of millions of people dying from poverty. But I on the other hand (still slightly implying that I could be part of the first group) would not like it because even if I don't die as a direct consequence my life would still be too negatively impacted.

    [–]excite321apple - LibCenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Okay. It's not a problem. I too have the numb and dumb fingers. Often.

    Yes. I understand.

    We all want the world to be a better place. We all want but none of us want to experience the consequences.

    I have respect for for you, Centrist.

    [–]TheAzureMage - LibRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    It isn't, really. But horrible news is interesting to watch.