Seems it was an inadvertent result from a rule designed to allow the Senate to pursue other business during a filibuster, so it wouldn’t hold up all Senate business.
Here’s a couple links, and there’s also a long wikipedia article on it.
There’s unfortunately more to it than that. It is on peaceful protestors to make sure they’re not supporting violent organizations. Just because I say something, and someone else says the same thing I say, does not make that person automatically my friend and ally.
Everyone who fights against some evil is not automatically a good person. It’s just not that simple in real life. Evil fights other evil all the time, look at gang wars and cartel violence.
There’s more to this than a simple smear campaign, and if we just try to brush it away as one, we are only hurting our own cause.
edit: We don’t want to be the equivalent of a “good cop” that covers for other corrupt cops, just because they’re “on the same side”. It’s hard, but we have to be better than that.
This is correct. The 60 vote threshold is to break a filibuster. Filibusters having become steadily more common since they changed the procedures for them that removed the requirement for a filibustering Senator to actually stand up and talk the whole time, which put a functional, biological cap on the potential duration of a filibuster. That cap no longer exists. This is sometimes called a “no-talk filibuster”.
They must not pay much attention to most protocols, because I seem to remember lots of threats flying around the past couple years with no mention of big evacuations.
I just don’t see how closed vials could threaten the lives of anyone, much less an entire building. It’s not a loose powder or something. It probably was a threat, but those are common these days. They wouldn’t evacuate if it was a letter with some generic “gonna kill you” threat written on it.
When I say stunt, I mean the evacuation was a stunt. Threats are a dime a dozen, if they evacuated for every one they wouldn’t get much done.
I think your feelings of resentment are clouding your judgement.
The essence of your argument seems to be that progressive policies will strengthen the hand of dems in a large number of elections. Can you back that up with data? Because when I look at electoral maps of the country I just don’t see it. It would strengthen their hand in progressive regions, no question, but those aren’t where the battle is being fought.
I would love it if you were right, but having lived in middle America often enough through my life, I just don’t see it reflected in the attitudes of locals.
It’s a coalition, and like all coalitions, it has a wide variety of sorts in it. We’re not together because we like each other, we don’t like each other. Nobody says we do, that I have heard anyway.
The two party system allows them to shift further right though. The further right the GOP goes, the further right the dems can go to try to vacuum up disaffected voters. I’m pretty sure parts of the GOP coalition know that too, and it factors into their strategy of getting some of their way even when they lose.
It’s about casting the widest possible net though, not lasering in on any particular subset and trying to make them happy. I don’t think anyone is perfectly happy currently, damn near absolutely no one.
Our solution is to try to make our positions more popular with the public, though. Not to try to pressure the party apparatus to appease a certain inner faction and pretend it won’t cost them with others. It will cost them elsewhere, the best we could do there is try to argue it might be worth it. But would it? Can that be guaranteed? Because if there’s one thing I’ve gauged about Biden, it’s that he doesn’t like taking big risks.
It’s really not that wild. You win elections by appealing to voters. You could take a gamble that you can inspire the younger generations enough to vote in larger numbers, or you could try to appeal to existing older swing voters. You can’t always do both simultaneously though.
The tiny home movement is a lot older than that, but yeah, more or less. Only distinction is that people usually want more of whatever given product, except with homes, where upkeep means having “too much house” can be a real life pain in the ass. It’s just more hours out of your day, having to upkeep any given room from weathering and getting dirty. Then it just comes down to personal preferences.
But they are definitely liked due to being cheaper, no question.