I think she is pro-Palestinian. By some people's definition that would make her anti-Semitic. I don't think it necessarily has to be.

FWIW, the wiki definition is below.

I can see making the distinction between anti-semitic "hostility towards Jews" (as a belief, religion etc.) vs anti-Israel "hostility towards Israel" (the country and its policies). There is a nuance there.

I'm curious what about voting against a missile shield makes her "safely anti-Semitic". Like if I don't think we need a build F-22s, am I "safely anti-American"?

C'mon - you know the semantic games you started here, especially when you decide "oh and Nazi Germany" in the next sentence so let's not feign ignorance when you get called on it.

SI

Yes. I'm not about to lend credence to the accusation by arguing over who has the burden of proof.

It's not the vote itself. It's also the explanation for her present vote (and crying), somewhat one sided IMO. It struck me as anti-Israel and, by default, anti-Semitic. However, I do think it is fair to split the 2 and not assume they are the same if we make the distinction between religion and country.


Question to you - I'll assume you do not believe she is anti-Semitic. Do you believe AOC is anti-Israel?

I've only heard about the "Quad" this week. I'm sure there were stuff going on before this summit but am a little (but pleasantly) surprised. It pretty much confirms that Biden is taking China seriously and really hope he can keep us all working well together.

South Korea would have been a natural to make it the "Pent" but suspect it was mutually agreed that SK would have been too much for China. India's involvement is great but they've always been somewhat standoffish so hopefully it'll be a lot closer now militarily and economically.

I think one can also acknowledge a bad humanitarian crisis in one of the most complicated geopolitical regions in our world without any clear cut good answer and a lot bad ones. I think there's a distinction between the US's strategic goals with regards to a country and how we view their people.

SI

This is me. You can be against everything Israel wants the US to do and not be an anti-Semite. Policy positions do not inherently imply motivations and attitudes.

Good news that the $1.2T seems to be split from the larger $3.5T bill. Or do we assume there is backroom consensus on both bills and total $ (before $1.2T is voted on)? Regardless, the $3.5T will be less assuming Pelosi/Biden really can corral the moderates and the progressives together into a compromise. My guess is around $2.5T.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/26/pelo...e-delayed.html

I'll give their special interest groups credit for defining people as anti-semitic if they won't give a billion-dollar handout to a country. Even the "America First" folks cower in fear.

Israel does not represent every Jewish person. Just as a predominately Muslim or Christian country does not represent everyone of that faith. Israel is an apartheid state, something we usually condemn. I still think we'll look back in 30 years on Israel the same way we look back on apartheid era South Africa.

I don't know if there is a world politics thread around here somewhere. If so, the mods can move this there. Germany has moved to the left though we don't know who will be replacing Angela Merkel.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/26/europ...ntl/index.html

There isn't a far-right party claiming the election was stolen and crying for it to be just handed to them?

Crying and then trying to steal the election is the way all elite democracies function!

I'm not sure if these "top brass" actually put something down on paper. Article says "noted, discussion, talked etc." but I want to know if something was written as a presentation or in recap notes etc.

Don't know about this situation, but if there was something I wanted to be sure the client understood my POV, I would put it down somewhere officially.

Top generals contradict Biden, say they urged him not to withdraw from Afghanistan - POLITICO

He would've been excoriated if he didn't follow through and there's no guarantee it would've prevented deaths.

'Lying' to the media/public aside I'd practically give Biden more credit if he ignored military advisors and pulled out of Afghanistan anyway. I also agree with Edward that there's an awful lot of context missing from all of that. While a 2,500 man force might be considered 'small' in terms of manpower, how many bases were we supposed to keep open and maintain? How many contractors would be filling in that void? Was the endless funneling of resources and military equipment to the Afghan 'Army' a conveniently unmentioned part of that small force?

Fascinating battle between centrist vs progressives with Pelosi in the middle. Pelosi seemed hell bent on bringing separate votes this past weekend but guess progressives aren't going down easily.

Not a good week for Biden so far.

Progressives dig in as Pelosi tries to save key vote - POLITICO

Forget that bipartisan shit, Biden needs to keep his party on the same track.

American Greatness, a right-wing website, is running a story saying that Kristi Noem is having an affair with Chris Lewandowski. I don't care about the affair, but I'm fascinated wondering which other GOP hopeful is trying to eliminate her.

GOP Senate mavericks (Romney, Collins, Murkowski) and Democratic Senate mavericks (Manchin, Sinema) will all squawk to the press about maybe not being on board with their party majority. But, in the end, the GOP mavericks will vote with their party. The Dem ones really won't.

Democrats really do seem to love defeating themselves. Just pass the infrastructure bill for now. Do something good while you can.

All those people vote with who pays the bills. It's not a party thing.

Whatever Kirsten Sinema is doing is fascinating to me. I just read that her favorable/unfavorable AMONG DEMOCRATS is 17%/65%. It was 67%/15% on January 1st.

She has voted against raising minimum wage, altering the filibuster, and has generally been a "tough get" for Democrats on the more controversial votes this year and it seems like her base has quickly gotten tired of it.

I'm just wondering what her endgame is. Is she trying to be a maverick like John McCain?Is she really that much of a bipartisan, institutionalist? Is she just completely on-board with and loyal to her special interest groups? Does she already have a job as a lobbyist locked up?

I can't imagine that she thinks she can win re-election with this type of support from the Democrats and it isn't like the Republicans, who are applauding her now, are going to support her in a general election. It really is an unexpected set of stances that she is taking.I know Manchin is behaving similarly, but West Virginia and Arizona are two very different sets of voters. It seems unlikely that she could win a primary if this holds up.

People try to make her out to be more complicated than it is. She likes money, got bribes, and has decided that's the best path for her life. Not the first or last politician to go down that path.

She probably won't run in 4 years and will take a high-paying job as a lobbyist in the pharmaceutical industry.

That's not really true in all cases, or Obamacare would have been gone long ago.

Yeah, I really don't think it is more complicated than that. She has no intention of keeping this job. She going to cash out.

Perhaps, but what short term thinking. You can cash out higher as a long term Senator.

Though when she was in the House she was a very conservative Democrat. She has voted with business a lot. I think what has happened is that Arizona went blue a lot quicker than expected. So she was seen as a conservative Dem who could actually win the Senate seat to, actually you don't need to be that far right to win in AZ.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Sinema was pretty far to the left when she started her career. Was a member of the Green Party and refused to take donations (called them bribes at the time). Now she's actively opposing issues she ran on just a couple of years ago. You don't flip that hard that fast without some kind of incentive.

She grew up incredibly poor. Got her first taste of the good life when she became a Senator and has taken a liking to it. Sure it might be short-sighted, but if you grew up without running water or electricity, having lobbyists throw money at you and your new designer lifestyle can have an impact.

Remember the power outages in Texas last winter? The legislature passed a bill requiring power companies to make winterizing upgrades to the power grid so that wouldn't happen again.

But it turns out that someone snuck in a provision where power companies can pay 150 dollars and not be required to do any upgrades.

Can any other state compete with Texas in the worst state competition?

Florida

Mrs. A and my son (tracked out) have a D.C. trip planned next week.

Glad to see that the shutdown has (almost certainly) been averted, so they Smithsonians, etc. will be open

And I think just the opposite. Independent voters control the national races here (30%+ registered independents) and they went for Trump in 2016, which is the same block that put Biden over in 2020.

Recent history here shows that to win a senate seat you need to be closer to center (not the same at all on the state senate level) and you can look at flake, McCain, Kelly and Sinema as proof of that.

Whatever her financial motivations, I think she is definitely looking long term, knowing that outside of getting primaried, she won't lose to about anyone the current GOP puts up, as long as she continues to court the center, because dems will not flip and most won't stay home because they want to avoid people like Wendy Rogers and Kelly Ward winning a national senate seat.

Kelly supports the bill and won his seat quite comfortably. Not really a good comparison.

One of her issues is with the pharmaceutical negotiating which is supported by 81% of the public and 61% of Republicans. So who exactly are these moderates she is lining herself up with?

The fact she won't say what she wants is a pretty good tell that this isn't about policy differences. She's trying to blow up a bill because she's gotten a truckload of cash from groups.

She is also not winning in 2024 if she blows this deal up. I'd be shocked if she even ran. Way more money in just being a lobbyist for a company that owes you some favors.

Both Machin and Sinema could be swayed with a few well-timed leaks from the DOJ. Machin's daughter is a criminal who should be in jail and Sinema's campaign finances is likely a treasure trove of criminal activity.

Message is simple. You can be a criminal and side with us or you can side with us and not be a criminal. But you can't be a criminal and not side with us.

When worlds collide!

Here's one I haven't heard before: Rep. Bucshon of Indiana suggests that a college athlete could sign an NIL with a foreign-owned company, and then be influenced by the government of that foreign country.

— Tom Schad (@Tom_Schad) September 30, 2021

It's hard not to feel like we're in the middle of collapse when there are so many obvious issues with this country/world that feel like they are at the tipping point: infrastructure, climate change, wage inequality, tax reform, health care, senior care, homelessness, mental health, etc. etc. and we are only willing to get in a massive stalemate battle over whether we should even acknowledge those issues, let alone do anything about them.

There is definitely no sense of urgency while both sides just try and screw each other

No way they can help the other side get their agenda through, can't let them win!

When the GOP's platform is basically "dismantle all government that isn't related to defense", I'm not sure how this is a "both sides" or "can't let the other team win" problem

SI

Does either side really care about anything other than what they want? Seriously, regardless of platform there is next to zero bipartisanship, though a higher percentage of how we got here falls on the GOP for sure.

The funny thing is that a lot of the social programs and even the child tax credit helps red states more than blue states. I'm not suggesting that they're doing this because it helps red states, but between the 2 dems are far more likely to pass legislation that helps both sides. Then when the GOP sees that something dems did that's popular with their voters they take credit for it and their voters believe them.

The first tweet is ripped from the pages of Duh magazine

Not so sure about the foreign influence BS

100% agree with this, GOP plays the game well this way and a lot of people are too naïve to see it

Oh yeah. I remember McConnell touting all of the money that was earmarked for fighting opioid abuse in KY in one of the bills that passed earlier this year despite near-unanimous GOP opposition - including him. I would call that shameless, but if the people who vote for you are too stupid to understand shame, maybe it doesn't exist.

Same with state block grants. Gives Republican governors money to spend on programs they get credit for without raising state taxes. Yet they will rail over federal spending that includes that money.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

It'll never happen & I'm not wishing for it or anything, but man Brett Kavanaugh dying of covid and Biden picking his replacement would be some ridiculous irony.

Good that he checked in. No idea how effective it was but couldn't hurt.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/01/polit...lay/index.html
... end up with nothing ... and a doomed presidency
There's always a game of chicken when dealing with budget.
Middle ground of $2.5T'ish sounds about right to me. Split the difference