House of Representatives 5: The Clown Caucus is Throwing Their Toys Out of The Playpen

[noseybutt]

18 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

It shouldn't. I totally agree. But this is a very rare case where it might. Unlikely, but possible enough I'm personally not willing to risk it. I'd much rather see what a second term Biden would do than a second-term Trump, and literally anyone else who might get elected in will be a first term president with 4 years of being careful lest they lose re-election the next time. Obama got much more done in his second term, I hope Biden does the same. 

I personally live in a state that went once for Obama and not the next time, which without gerrymandering would be solidly purple, maybe even blue-leaning, and where despite the gerrymandering I am in a reddish county right next to a solidly blue one where maybe, possibly, my vote might actually make a small difference, so that informs my choices. 

I get that my perspective is affected by that situation, and others might be in a situation where a protest vote might make a bigger statement than choosing to vote for Biden against Trump. 

Because I have to work? 

And really, what good would it do for me to be out in the street yelling at a cloud? Trump adores and feeds off attention, both good and bad. The maga faithful have shown there is literally nothing Trump can do that they won't spin into being the best thing ever, and there is literally nothing anyone opposed to Trump can do that they won't twist into something hellish. Right now, I can support candidates for smaller office, have discussions with people I know (though frankly some of them are so brainwashed they cannot think critically anymore, it seems), participate in any mass protests that are well planned with a real goal and the potential to have a real impact, support organizations I believe in, vote, and hope that Trump is convicted of enough that he's left off the ballot as many places as possible. Or that the hamberders and KFC finally get him. Or that he does something to piss off Putin. 

And at the election I can choose to vote for Biden, if I still feel he's the best option (even if that's really the least bad option), because he at least seems to be a decent person not attempting to destroy the country for his own benefit, and because there IS the possibility that my vote might matter. A little. 

While I think it's unlikely, I genuinely think that if Trump got everything he's aiming for, the option to vote will be gone. On top of him stating full out he wants more than two 4-year terms as president, he has a chunk of supporters who legit think women should not be allowed to vote. And you know they believe that of other minorities, too, they just haven't been brave enough to say so yet. I'm not willing for my potential last presidential vote to be one that helps take away that option to vote in the future. 

I think that protest voting can potentially work down ballot, but at the presidential level this election cycle, with this particular orange menace in the running is TO ME in my situation and location not worth the risk. 

Now if he's NOT on the ballot? Things might be different. At the next election afterward if Trump hasn't turned us into a dictatorship? Things might be different. But if Trump is on the ballot I'm choosing to vote Biden on the presidential level.

I get why others might choose differently. And if they choose to, I hope they live in states where that vote will make a statement without contributing to Trump's re-election. I hope someday we do have more than two parties (I suspect if a Republican is not elected as president in 2024 we will hopefully see that party split, making it more viable for other parties to gain power as well). I hope someday all the brainwashed MAGA fanatics come to their senses. And I hope someday we have a presidential election where we can easily choose the best candidate, not the least bad one, without the risk of rights being stripped away from large swathes of the population. 

I don't have time to respond fully right now but wanted to say thank you for your thoughts. These are issues I have been giving serious thought to, along with many of the people here, and it's helpful to have the back and forth. 

[kittykay]

2 hours ago, noseybutt said:

So anyone who truly believes things are this dire, why wait for the election? Why are you not in the streets at this moment waging daily protest?

Our democracy cannot hinge on a single office. 

Respectfully, not all of us are able to be in the streets with protests.  I would be there if my old worn-out body allowed.  But, I do what I CAN do and that is to make sure my "representatives" (term used loosely) hear my voice in many different ways.  Just because I am not in the streets doesn't mean I do nothing.  

[noseybutt]

43 minutes ago, kittykay said:

Respectfully, not all of us are able to be in the streets with protests.  I would be there if my old worn-out body allowed.  But, I do what I CAN do and that is to make sure my "representatives" (term used loosely) hear my voice in many different ways.  Just because I am not in the streets doesn't mean I do nothing.  

Oh I agree with this. I have a job and family, like most here, and time/energy is limited and I sure as heck am not in the streets. Contacting representatives IS extremely important.

What I am trying to reconcile though it the idea that people seem to be saying our democracy is ending yet.....

To rephrase this, @Alisamer is saying that if Trump wins, there will be no chance to vote third party. I take that to mean there will be no more elections, meaning the right taken away from third party voters is the same right that will be taken away from everyone. Nobody will be voting.

If we are truly at that point, then what should we be doing? 

It's fascinates me the vitriol hurled towards third party voters with the accusation that they are part of this destruction of democracy. People are okay with registered independents--only as far as they align with the "correct" party. That is ludicrous. We should be encouraging people to vote and vote their conscience, even if the votes don't always go the way we wish.

In terms of 2024 election, I struggle with the "end of democracy" argument (ETA within the context of voting) simply because it doesn't seem to line up with how people are behaving. Life continues on as normal. Which means, this is a tool of rhetoric rather than a deeply held conviction. 

(I say this as someone who IS deeply concerned about the future of our democracy. I have read various viewpoints on this and there are days when it seems overwhelming and other days when I, personally, am optimistic.)
 

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by noseybutt

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

Life continues on as normal for the most part in a dictatorship. Life in Russia was not *that* different from western world in a lot of ways up until Ukraine.  Life continues in Cuba. and so on.

There's what I would consider clear reporting that there are, right now, right wing think tanks drawing up plans for how to keep government in right wing hands from now on.

We now know that they were apparently pretty seriously trying to do this at the last election. Not a few crazies. but a whole bunch of well educated lawyer and policy types. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing inspired by Dump....they were planning and trying things behind the scenes before jan 6th. I think that changes the arithmetic quite a bit moving fwd.

I do think there is a real chance if what's his name is elected than we won't have free elections after that. We might have elections but they will refine their system for eliminating unwanted votes. They have already tried to do this - so I don't think it's alarmist to be VERY concerned they're going to try again. I have to assume they are learning from their past mistakes. There's more behind this election denying than just what's his name. He's in it for ego but ego wouldn't have taken him this far. He's got backers helping this along. What's his name is no criminal mastermind. He's the fireworks to draw your eye away from the real players.

As to protesting....it's not effective and the US doesn't really allow much protesting. Somehow protestors end up dead. Mystery to the police. oh well. Happened here recently with protests unrelated to national politics. 

Also - protesting in a massive country like this? It's like protesting the E.U....where is "The E.U." it's big and doesn't set all the rules, just some. You could maybe shut the main E.U. offices down but that wouldn't directly affect the individual countries. It's not like citizens in France's largest city being able to shut down the city and government to meet demands.

We're too broad with decentralized power centers to protest effectively. The actor strike has been going on for months, with the actors asking very reasonable demands (like to not be scanned for use in perpetuity through AI by the studios). They've shut down hollywood with significant financial burdens for all involved. And that didn't work.

So how would the largest protest you can imagine do anything more than be a ding on the national news?? Even a huge armed mob couldn't really do anything on Jan 6th because the government is so huge and spread out, that huge mob with weapons, and going totally berserker -  even that didn't derail the next steps. 

We have a massive police state to shut down protests and such.  What would be accomplished by such protests?

 

Edit to add. 

I think the scary thing is that's there's always been a lot of back room dealing. But lately that back room dealing seems to be getting very treasonous. We've had yet another president that won the electoral college but lost popular vote. The congress and supreme court are full of people who no longer represent the average american and seem loathe to leave office. And then there was some sort of crazy deal in the house to put for the latest guy even though he's more sketchy than the others presented....AND THEY ALL VOTED FOR HIM....WHY!?? I've not heard any news discussing how odd that was or theorizing what may have happened. 

Overall there's less reporters than there used to be and a lot more of them are employed by very partisan news agencies. Whereas in the past there was a standard of trying to be unbiased, now? It's anything goes as long as the owner approves. It's wild and who knows what's not being reported any more.

[Ozlsn]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:45 AM, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

To those who aren't American - somebody above posted about voting and unopposed seats...

1. Sometimes those "unopposed" elections are not really unopposed. They're in solid republican or democratic places where people of the opposing party do not want to spend the money on what is hopeless. In America some districts are "gerrymandered" quite badly in many places  - meaning the lines for where the voters are clumped together are drawn to make the district either republican or democratic as the case may be. If you live or vote in such a district where the lines have been drawn to where there's basically no way for another party to win - it would be wasteful of the money to spend on running a candidate in that area.

2. Money. in the USA they rolled back what few rules we had about political donations and our supreme court ruled that a corporation has rights like a human person has to influence elections and policy through money. There are functionally no limits on political money. Our elections, for even small offices, are swamped by outside money of people peddling for influence.  The democratic party and republican party - as a whole but especially at state level - help with funding candidates at all levels. Through direct $ but also through directing rich donors and connecting people with "the right" people. So if you have little chance of winning a district because of a strong lean to one party or due to gerry mandering - as a party - the repubs or dems are not going to want to take money/donors/attention away from other races in a neighboring district that might be winnable. 

This is how sometimes we get random rich guy candidates, nobody reasonable could get the party behind them, the party ran the person they decided but voters didn't much like...so the rich guy comes in from out of nowhere, pulls in rich guy friends, and suddenly has a position of more influence and power.

But mostly everybody in our government is rich to start out with. Our election cycles run for such long times and are sooooo expensive, you have to already be rich and have that influence with other rich people....and the rich people tend to support candidates of like mind who will support more legislation that favors rich people.

Since we have basically no limits on spending for elections - there's no apparatus to get a 3rd party going. There's no funding. You'd need a rich guy with many rich friends, not just an isolated rich guy, to even attempt to be competitive. 

I don't know how we can ever get out of this at this point. It's a self fulfilling loop now that there's no legal recourse to limit spending by huge corporations and political groups formed to influence government.  Regular people can't compete.

That was me posting about the unopposed elections. I guess what concerns me is that if you don't field candidates then people don't show up to vote, and the people elected see it as justification of doing things like gerrymandering because, well, no one cared enough to stand.

(OK, total moment of curiosity - if people wrote in the same candidate and it ranked higher than the actual candidates what happens? Is that the Michael Moore ficus situation?)

As to the costs and competing- I think now is one of the times where ordinary people can compete more effectively than previously. Social media, grassroots campaigns can be effective and are cheaper than radio/tv ads  - but they take work and time, and that is definitely where corporations have an advantage (just pay someone). 

As I said, I come from a different system, but it concerns me a lot that it feels like it's in the too hard basket to run a candidate per Congressional seat, no matter the likelihood of success. Trainee politicians and managers - here's how to get a start, go out, do the door knocking, talk to the people, run the campaign. It may still fail (miserably even), but at least you have experience for round 2 and you force the incumbent to actually justify why they should be elected.

[GreyhoundFan]

15 minutes ago, Ozlsn said:

(OK, total moment of curiosity - if people wrote in the same candidate and it ranked higher than the actual candidates what happens? Is that the Michael Moore ficus situation?)

It's rare, but happens. Lisa Murkowski won in 2010 as a write-in candidate. In 1954, Strom Thurmond was the only other senator elected via write-in.

I realize they were senate elections. I couldn't find anything about house members.

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

It's rare to have a successful write in . There have been some strong attempts over the years but there just isn't enough behind the scenes mechanisms. A strong attempt is something like 2-3% of the national vote.

I think independent/3rd party type candidates have better chances in smaller communities and lower level offices. In a smaller community they have a chance to actually get around and meet enough people. In a larger state or very populous district within a state, you're going to battle the 2 established parties AND the size/traveling the district AND the difficulty in reaching a variety of people without the behind the scenes apparatus.

I don't think social media helps anybody these days unless they have money.

I still have facebook, instagram, and use youtube a lot. The  amount of ads at all times is staggering. I just had a facebook group discuss whether they should allow ads relevant to the group topic posted by members. And the members actually voted to allow it....to allow even more ads in a group that has no connection to any type of production (it is a discussion group about a specific profession)

If you don't have money to buy ads on all these platforms, it's not very likely at all that your message will find anybody.

Youtube despite my endless attempts to help it not show me crap....continues to show me crap....during the last election youtube decided I must speak korean  (nope, not at all) so showed me korean political ads for various offices. While it was interesting to find out that there were korean language ads with korean looking people in the ads for all sorts of offices....it was some stupid ad placement and Ihave no idea why - don't watch anything korean related. 

So how does an every man communicate through the static?

My local newspapers including the what used to be a free handout in the grocery store - are ALL now behind paywall. I can't find out what's going on at all in my county. The county news doesn't appear anywhere else but I'm not paying 15-20/month to the scammiest looking website ever just to try to figure out what the school district is up to or what weird laws they want to implement. So there's just no news. I couldn't find anything at all about the smaller level elections the last round that wasn't behind paywall. I ended up just voting for various democrats because there was a shortage of information. 

I don't think we've realized yet how little free press we have in US now and the effects this will have moving forward.

 

[kittykay]

1 hour ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

I do think there is a real chance if what's his name is elected than we won't have free elections after that. We might have elections, but they will refine their system for eliminating unwanted votes. They have already tried to do this - so I don't think it's alarmist to be VERY concerned they're going to try again. I have to assume they are learning from their past mistakes. There's more behind this election denying than just what's his name. He's in it for ego but ego wouldn't have taken him this far. He's got backers helping this along. What's his name is no criminal mastermind. He's the fireworks to draw your eye away from the real players.

Agree 100%.  I am also very concerned.  In my state it has become incredibly difficult to vote.  He sure does like the title President for Life.  If he gets some handlers that actually know what they are doing this time, I could see this happening.  

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

yeah I've not even touched on the decrease in voting locations and methods nationwide. It's frustrating. There should be a blanket law. District with X number of voters has X number of voting drop boxes and voting locations. 

When I was small we lived in a poor area. I remember standing in looooooong lines late in the evening after my mother got off work when she went to vote. It was definitely a cross section of the poor international area we lived in.

I somehow doubt the nearby rich areas had those long lines. Nowadays I live in a middle of the road neighborhood and my voting spot isn't too backed up and I live VERY close to the early voting spot, so if there's a line it's pretty easy to turn around and come back later.  Although in 2022 I stood in line 45 minutes with a very dedicated crowd, outside in the cold waiting to vote during early voting. But that was extremely unusual.

[noseybutt]

39 minutes ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

It's rare to have a successful write in . There have been some strong attempts over the years but there just isn't enough behind the scenes mechanisms. A strong attempt is something like 2-3% of the national vote.

I think independent/3rd party type candidates have better chances in smaller communities and lower level offices. In a smaller community they have a chance to actually get around and meet enough people. In a larger state or very populous district within a state, you're going to battle the 2 established parties AND the size/traveling the district AND the difficulty in reaching a variety of people without the behind the scenes apparatus.

I don't think social media helps anybody these days unless they have money.

I still have facebook, instagram, and use youtube a lot. The  amount of ads at all times is staggering. I just had a facebook group discuss whether they should allow ads relevant to the group topic posted by members. And the members actually voted to allow it....to allow even more ads in a group that has no connection to any type of production (it is a discussion group about a specific profession)

If you don't have money to buy ads on all these platforms, it's not very likely at all that your message will find anybody.

Youtube despite my endless attempts to help it not show me crap....continues to show me crap....during the last election youtube decided I must speak korean  (nope, not at all) so showed me korean political ads for various offices. While it was interesting to find out that there were korean language ads with korean looking people in the ads for all sorts of offices....it was some stupid ad placement and Ihave no idea why - don't watch anything korean related. 

So how does an every man communicate through the static?

My local newspapers including the what used to be a free handout in the grocery store - are ALL now behind paywall. I can't find out what's going on at all in my county. The county news doesn't appear anywhere else but I'm not paying 15-20/month to the scammiest looking website ever just to try to figure out what the school district is up to or what weird laws they want to implement. So there's just no news. I couldn't find anything at all about the smaller level elections the last round that wasn't behind paywall. I ended up just voting for various democrats because there was a shortage of information. 

I don't think we've realized yet how little free press we have in US now and the effects this will have moving forward.

 

The lack of quality and accessible journalism deeply concerns me too. The paywalls are something of a catch-22 in that quality print journalism traditionally has relied subscriptions and that doesn’t translate well to internet era. To be financially sustainable there has to be at least either ads or subscriptions, maybe both? 

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

1 minute ago, noseybutt said:

The lack of quality and accessible journalism deeply concerns me too. The paywalls are something of a catch-22 in that quality print journalism traditionally has relied subscriptions and that doesn’t translate well to internet era. To be financially sustainable there has to be at least either ads or subscriptions, maybe both? 

The local county news is paywall AND covered with sketchy ads. It seems like a website that is definitely giving you a virus....and that's the only news source for my county ( I live in a densely populated suburb of a large city, there's no central town or main town).

During 22 elections I really wanted to know more about the many people running. There were a few "get to know your candidate" type websites that candidates could fill out profiles and they uploaded it. I would say only 1/4 -1/3 did. I tried reading the candidates websites but they were so bloated with political meaningless statements I couldn't figure out what any of them stood for. It was very frustrating.

When I lived in a different state, before 100% digital take over, the town I lived in had it's own free newspaper type magazine that listed concerts, had local stories, lots of ads but there was actual content. Every year they would put out a voter guide with break downs of all the seats up for election. Interviews with candidates, charts comparing them by issue, and then at the end a thing you could make a list of who you decided to vote for that you could carry with you into the voting booth. My significant other and I at the time sat down and went through all the options and discussed etc.

How did that magazine manage to run for all those years but we can't have something similar now? 

I guess they were all bought up and are being run by more for profit places now. 

I saw a study somewhere recently talking about the # of ads people see now vs the 70s and it was enormous. I can't believe that somehow ads didn't support anything before the digital age and that we need SO MANY ads now for these websites to exist. I think the difference now is there's layers of capitalism/middle men (top executives) who all want profits beyond reason and don't care how many ads there are.

Until covid I didn't have internet at my house and preferred it that way. Had to get internet to work from home during lock down and I  continue to have a need for that option even though I don't really work from home. I miss my non-internet home. The ads. there's so much just nonsense thrown at me now....and I"m mostly used to it!!

[Ozlsn]

31 minutes ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

During 22 elections I really wanted to know more about the many people running. There were a few "get to know your candidate" type websites that candidates could fill out profiles and they uploaded it. I would say only 1/4 -1/3 did. I tried reading the candidates websites but they were so bloated with political meaningless statements I couldn't figure out what any of them stood for. It was very frustrating

One of my friends used to run a political website before she passed away - she did a deep dive into getting as much publicly available information as she could about candidates and parties and put up a summary page for each one. She admitted up front she was coming from a specific position and her reviews of policies would be biased from that position. Some candidates still took exception and tried to harangue her in the (moderated) comments section.

Having said that a couple came back to clarify things when they realised that their position was unclear or that info was hard to find (more for the Senate where there are a huge number of parties and independents).

What makes me sad is that you shouldn't need a dedicated political geek with a passion for democracy and terrier-like Google skills to do this in her free time, that was what the press was supposed to be doing!!

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

3 minutes ago, Ozlsn said:

One of my friends used to run a political website before she passed away - she did a deep dive into getting as much publicly available information as she could about candidates and parties and put up a summary page for each one. She admitted up front she was coming from a specific position and her reviews of policies would be biased from that position. Some candidates still took exception and tried to harangue her in the (moderated) comments section.

Having said that a couple came back to clarify things when they realised that their position was unclear or that info was hard to find (more for the Senate where there are a huge number of parties and independents).

What makes me sad is that you shouldn't need a dedicated political geek with a passion for democracy and terrier-like Google skills to do this in her free time, that was what the press was supposed to be doing!!

Yeah this is why I don't believe in "progress." I have studied ancient history quite a bit. I think we've forgotten as many important things as we've learned. There seems to be a finite amount of anything a society can understand at any given moment. 

I think right now US society (I try to not automatically include all "western" cultures, but perhaps appropriate?) has forgotten some of the decent humanity things in favor of the science and money things. We have lots of things and stuff. Tons of entertainment. Clothes and food are cheap compared with historically. American lives are relatively easy and most Americans can't fathom the sorts of daily life people in Afghanistan and Gaza experience. But I think we unwittingly traded away other sorts of knowledge and good things for these things.  

In my lifetime, I've watched us trade away real news. Investigative reporting seems to be almost dead. I read a biography of Nellie Bly when I was younger. I intellectually understood what she did and how it was important but I think I "grok" it in a new way now. It was hard for me to understand before why what she did was SO important. But now that it's slipping away and I'm looking at us move towards early 1800s/1700s superstition and rumor. Wow she was something. The book the Scarlett Letter seemed so archaic once. Now it seems frighteningly real and current.  I read about some weird group dancing craze in the early 1800s where people literally danced to death and thought "woah, nuts, too much arsenic in their tea" and now I just sit here gobsmacked thinking...wow any time, any place where ignorance, religion, and sycophancy reign.

I watch call the midwife, I read the books, I watched that disturbing abortion movie from the 90s (if these walls could talk). I hated that movie. It disturbed me. I spent years thinking about it regularly. But it was a distant thing in a way because I *could* get an abortion. I could get birth control pretty easily. Dying from an attempt at home abortion was not a concern I had. That was "olden times stuff" that movie was like watching a documentary about the witch trials or the spanish inquisition. "wow the past was scary for a woman"

I don't know even what to think now. Why would any society choose to undo these good things? Why would we trade this for ...what? tik tok, robot vacuums, and AI? I don't think it was a good exchange.

[Xan]

To me, it's just about greed.  Look at the Murdoch family.  Old Rupert didn't care if he was peddling lies as long as it made him a lot of money.  Who cares if Fox tried to destroy democracy?  There was money to be made.

Our local newspaper used to be worth the subscription price.  Now, it's down to about two sections and those are flimsy at best.  I think they don't like paying reporters and are willing to just print stuff from a news feed.  And a lot of local papers were just bought up by major players and then shut down.  I might need to get my tinfoil hat on to say this but it's almost as if the upper tier who have most of the money and the power don't really want the citizens to be informed.  We can be amused by TikTok and YouTube but if we find a place on the internet where we can actually share real news and ideas (Twitter), some rich guy comes along and buys it and ruins it.  (Yes, Twitter wasn't perfect but you could actually connect with people in other countries who were filming events as they happened.  If it were not for Twitter, I wouldn't have found out about what Putin was doing to Navalny and why.)

[noseybutt]

Should we start a pool as to potential budget or lack thereof? 🍿

[Howl]

Eric Swalwell was brilliant yesterday in a hearing.  He said he'd be Gym Jordan's accountability partner and proceeded to call Gym out on his BS, including ignoring a sub poena. 

[Howl]

16 hours ago, noseybutt said:

Should we start a pool as to potential budget or lack thereof? 🍿

Not passing a budget and plunging the country into chaos is extremely unpopular; is that the risk the risk Republicans want to take after got their asses handed to them on a platter on Tuesday? 

When people living day to day, month to month don't get a check, it's a disaster.  Economy going to hell, services shut off, people laid off, it's winter and people are already thinking about Christmas?

I'm mentally writing in HUGE CAPS:  WTAF is wrong with these people?  They have ONE JOB.  I'd guess Republicans will hold the country hostage until they get at least some of the concessions they want.  When you have someone like Johnson at the helm of the House, God's will, blah blah.  

Related to some topics above: Turkey is a very recent example of a country that went from a secular democracy to a full blown religious dictatorship under Erdogan.   

If Trump is elected and there is a majority Republican House and Senate, the country that we know and love will be over; we'll become a de facto dictatorship run by theocrats.  

 

 

[Loveday]

On 11/9/2023 at 8:49 AM, Xan said:

To me, it's just about greed.  Look at the Murdoch family.  Old Rupert didn't care if he was peddling lies as long as it made him a lot of money.  Who cares if Fox tried to destroy democracy?  There was money to be made.

Our local newspaper used to be worth the subscription price.  Now, it's down to about two sections and those are flimsy at best.  I think they don't like paying reporters and are willing to just print stuff from a news feed.  And a lot of local papers were just bought up by major players and then shut down.  I might need to get my tinfoil hat on to say this but it's almost as if the upper tier who have most of the money and the power don't really want the citizens to be informed.  We can be amused by TikTok and YouTube but if we find a place on the internet where we can actually share real news and ideas (Twitter), some rich guy comes along and buys it and ruins it.  (Yes, Twitter wasn't perfect but you could actually connect with people in other countries who were filming events as they happened.  If it were not for Twitter, I wouldn't have found out about what Putin was doing to Navalny and why.)

Have to chime in here on the local newspaper situation. We haven't subscribed to ours in a couple of years. My mother always did, but even she realised in her last year or so that the paper had gotten smaller and far less local than it had used to be. Well, that's because it got bought out by some international company that, as you point out, didn't want to pay local reporters, so all it printed was short little articles like USA Today prints. Quick blurbs from the AP. And this newspaper used to be one of the best local dailies in the country. I always swore I'd never give up my newspaper...and now, I can't remember the last time I read one.

We used to have a sort of 'extra' to the paper a couple times a week, just for my city (my area is comprised of 7 cities surrounding bodies of water like the Chesapeake Bay, the Elizabeth River, and other tributaries). It used to showcase local art, nature, and upcoming events for charity, as well as school happenings, high school sports, and student achievements. Nowadays, it's nothing but articles, more like thinly disguised adverts, for local businesses, which would be fine if it also included all the other things it used to publish. And it used to be fifty or sixty pages. Now? Maybe a dozen pages, mostly filled with actual adverts along with the aforesaid local business 'articles.' And it comes out just once a week. 

News journalists, both on the national stage and locally, often annoy me with their sometimes inane questions and unnecessary repetitiveness (CNN, I'm looking at you, except for my man Jake Tapper! LOL), but the press is SO important to this country it's not funny. If we lose the Fourth Estate, we're in more trouble than we can possibly imagine.🙁

[Alisamer]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:05 PM, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

So how does an every man communicate through the static?

There's a House Rep here who is pretty active directly on socials, with his own Reddit group where he posts often, Twitter, I think Tik Tok, Facebook, etc. I think actively engaging directly with people like that is likely the best way to reach people - at least people who are tech savvy enough to have social media.

I think that these days, to reach the most people, it'll take a pretty wide spread of communication. Younger people are more likely using Tik Tok and Reddit, Facebook skews older, and there are still people who only watch network news and read the local paper in paper form. I can't imagine trying to coordinate that. 

2 hours ago, Howl said:

I'm mentally writing in HUGE CAPS:  WTAF is wrong with these people?  They have ONE JOB.  I'd guess Republicans will hold the country hostage until they get at least some of the concessions they want.  When you have someone like Johnson at the helm of the House, God's will, blah blah.  

I think the thing is that for the most part, Republicans feel like their entire job is to "own the libs" and prevent Democrats from achieving anything. At all. Not saying the Dems are perfect, by any means, but they seem to on the whole have a slightly better grasp of the concept of "representing" the people who voted for them. 

Also there are no real consequences, until election time. They get voted in, they get the office and the paycheck, and they know their next performance review is years away, essentially. Skip work, vote "present" instead of participating, nap in their seats, whatever. They've got the job. Sure, they might lose committee assignments, but that just leaves them with less actual work they have to pretend to do. At least until it's time to start campaigning in earnest again.

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

I just *love* that right now with us about to go into shut down....again.....their top priority continues to be looking into hunter biden.

They really should be ashamed of themselves.

They all know it's bullshit but it's all a part of their trying to take over the white house/country. To anybody thinking some of us are being paranoid about the dictatorship they're trying to put in....Here ya go. They're not even "behind the scenes" here. The house of fucking representatives is spending precious time trying to take down biden.....despite ongoing lack of any real proof and despite what's his name having done much worse things under the "profit from presidency umbrella"...... a year ahead of time rather than just deal with the budget, a thing they will HAVE to do before the election.

Let's ask ourselves: Why would they do this?

The only reason I can tell is they have been directed and/or decided that the more important task is setting up the election next year for what's his name & company. It's more important to all these people to make sure their coup works next time. Once they have their coup they can "solve" the budget however they want. They are worried that if the next election cycle is allowed to go through unfettered they will lose seats and their "opportunity" to legislate republican control over voter choice.

 

And I used to think the tea party was scary crazy. Remember the tea party? history will look on them as moderates.

[kittykay]

4 hours ago, Howl said:

If Trump is elected and there is a majority Republican House and Senate, the country that we know and love will be over; we'll become a de facto dictatorship run by theocrats.

Nailed it, Howl.  This is exactly my outlook as well.  I have never considered myself an alarmist, but this time worries me.  And I am too old and lacking money to emigrate to Canada if this nightmare scenario happens.

[Ozlsn]

10 hours ago, Alisamer said:

think the thing is that for the most part, Republicans feel like their entire job is to "own the libs" and prevent Democrats from achieving anything

There is certainly a Caucus who believe that completely, a much larger contingent who know they should be doing more but are too spineless to stand up to the Caucus and an increasingly smaller group who keep trying but are overwhelmed by the bullies in their party. Frankly the last group I have the least sympathy for right now because they should have voted with the D's for a sane speaker and told the rest to actually be adults and act like it, or sit down and shut up.

The Caucus believe that if they break the government they can re-mould it into how they want, with themselves on top. I hope like he'll they all get voted out.

10 hours ago, Loveday said:

Well, that's because it got bought out by some international company that, as you point out, didn't want to pay local reporters,

We used to have a local paper that was part of a bigger network - it stopped about 5 years ago due to lowered advertising numbers and not being viable (according to the bigger corporation, who just incidentally paid no tax last year. Again!) My former hometown paper continues to hang on - I swear it's the sports reporting, all the parents get it for the photos of their kids in action, the photos of their kids at school events, etc.

[GreyhoundFan]

These people are insane: "House GOP unveils funding bill that critic calls ‘craziest, stupidest thing’"

Quote

With less than a week before federal spending laws expire, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Saturday unveiled a novel and uncertain plan to temporarily extend funding — but it’s already been rejected by the Senate and White House, increasing the odds of a government shutdown.

Johnson’s proposed stopgap funding bill, called a continuing resolution or “CR,” would leave funds for different federal agencies to expire at different times, according to three people familiar with the House leader’s plans, requiring Congress to confront multiple deadlines in the coming months or risk repeated partial government shutdowns.

The House speaker described the two-step proposal as a move to avoid the massive spending bills that historically have been considered by Congress.

“Separating out the CR from the supplemental funding debates places our conference in the best position to fight for fiscal responsibility, oversight over Ukraine aid, and meaningful policy changes at our Southern border,” Johnson said in a statement released on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Funds for military and veterans programs, agriculture and food agencies, and the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development would run through Jan. 19. The remaining government funding — covering the State, Justice, Commerce, Labor and Health and Human Services departments, among others — would expire on Feb. 2.

The plans are fluid and may change as the House considers the legislation, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations between lawmakers. If a new spending law isn’t enacted before the current one expires, the federal government will shut down at 12:01 a.m. on Nov. 18

The two-tiered proposal was originally favored by the far-right House Freedom Caucus, whose views often influence Johnson. But key members of that group have more recently been skeptical of the plan because it lacks spending cuts.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.) posted on X, “I 100% oppose,” because the bill funds the government at current spending levels.

Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, told reporters earlier in the week the staggered plan was “politically DOA,” because it did not have Democratic support.

The Democratic-controlled Senate and the Biden administration have already rejected the “laddered” CR, which has never before been attempted.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, on Friday called the staggered funding plan “the craziest, stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of.”

The White House panned the idea as a “recipe for more Republican chaos” that would lead to further shutdowns.

“House Republicans are wasting precious time with an unserious proposal that has been panned by members of both parties,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.

Passage of the measure in the deeply divided House is far from assured. Republican infighting has prevented Johnson from winning votes on longer-term spending bills for individual agencies and programs, and small-government fiscal hawks have said they would not support a CR unless it contained deep spending cuts or staggered budget deadlines for different parts of the government. It’s not clear if other Republicans will support the new plan, though.

The plan would not include any of the billions of dollars President Biden has requested for military aid to Ukraine or for global humanitarian aid to deal with the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. The House earlier this month passed a bill to send $14 billion to Israel for the war in Gaza, but coupled it with cuts to IRS funding that the White House and Senate Democrats have rejected.

Johnson and the GOP enjoy a narrow majority in the House. If more than four Republicans reject the speaker’s proposal, Johnson would need to rely on Democratic votes to extend funding and avert a shutdown — a red line for some conservatives, including a small band that forced Johnson’s predecessor, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), to give up the speaker’s gavel after he allowed a previous spending bill to pass on a bipartisan basis.

The impasse threatens to send millions of federal workers home without pay while suspending a broad range of government services, including national parks, key IRS functions and federal disaster relief. A protracted shutdown could have more serious effects, impeding food safety inspections and public benefits for the poor, among thousands of other federal operations.

The U.S. government has come close to missing key financial deadlines twice this year alone. In May, McCarthy and Biden reached a deal to prevent a breach of the nation’s borrowing limit with just days to spare before a potentially cataclysmic impact on financial markets. Then in September, with less than 24 hours to spare, McCarthy relied on Democratic votes to approve a measure to fund the government — which enraged the far right and quickly led to his ouster.

The imminent deadline represents a similar test for the new House speaker, who has held the office for less than three weeks and has never chaired a congressional committee.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) took procedural steps on Friday to allow a funding bill to pass out of the upper chamber if the House doesn’t act. Leaders of both parties in the Senate prefer a bill to extend government funding at current spending levels into December.

Congress has never before implemented such a broad “laddered” funding bill. The nearest analog is a 1991 CR that extended federal funding for around 45 days, but gave a single component — a provision that paid for the State Department and foreign operations — a slightly longer deadline to accommodate ongoing negotiations between then-President George H.W. Bush and Congress over economic development aid to Israel.

 

[kittykay]

I think they want the government shutdown, as crazy (and they are crazy) as that is to most people in this country.  

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

I'm confused why they think doing the same things - or worse - will somehow work?