@NormOrnstein Its past time we start setting up safe houses for people and encourage families to have an escape plan, and defend themselves as necessary. ICE isnt there to lawfully arrest, detain in sanitary conditions, and give due process. They go out of their way to do the opposite
@BruceDuck2 Republicans do not obey the law, courts, or the constitution, and use violence when they dont get their way, then reward the violence. GOP disenfranchisement is anti-democratic the same way that shooting a home invader is killing. Technically true but justified given circumstance
@BruceDuck2 No clue why Musk's AI bot would be a source of valid analysis but the "radicalization" is solely caused by the actions of the Republican party. The question "Is X party antidemocratic and dangerous to democracy?" can be evaluated for truth, the evidence for which is overwhelming
@michigeese Hey now, give them a chance. Sometimes they like to pretend to do something good before doing something horrifically evil. Be patient. Its hard work destroying the country
@ReichlinMelnick What is the plan if they actually do it, something similar, or use the feds to do something like violently suppress 26/28? The courts failed, congress has failed, the people of the US have failed, are we really gonna close our eyes and not prepare for the inevitable?
@atrupar Either shes extremely stupid (likely) or this is an elaborate subtle hint that the Senate is going to ignore the advice of the Parlimentarian and by "including election fraud" they mean theyre going to fraudulently pass a measure that would normally be 60 votes by simple majority
@ConspiracyBull1 I mean not that Trump hasn't blatantly violated the constitution in this area already, but under normal circumstances theres no way that money is getting past a filibuster. Maybe Rs do another recon bill but I'm not sure a provision like that would survive the Byrd rule
@KDbyProxy Lets say the dems get 57 votes on the appeal, which still fails, could the Dem leader not appeal it needing 60 votes? Maybe that makes more sense or im probably misunderstanding something again
@KDbyProxy Im sorry, it just clicked. The chair would make an egregious ruling, it would take 60 votes to overturn that ruling, meaning the egregious ruling is sustained if it doesn't get 60 votes to overturn, and Rs *want* the egregious ruling obviously so theyre not going to challenge
@KDbyProxy To overturn that would require 60 votes. That vote would likely fail. Could Thune then not make a point of order that the Byrd rule requires only a simple majority to overcome a PoO, which the chair would rule against, then Thune could appeal *that* ruling, overturning it by 51?
@KDbyProxy Ok I think youre saying the R Chair could simply not follow the advice of the Parlimentarian and rule the SAVE act only requires 51 votes to be in the recon bill. I do think that ultimately ends up in a similar appeal vote that has the same effect as what I said
@KDbyProxy R offers SAVE act as amendment to recon bill
D makes point of order its not compliant with Byrd
Chair sustains ruling
R appeal (60 votes)
Vote fails
R makes point of order that overruling Byrd requires only simple majority
Chair overrules
R appeal
R defeat Chair with 51 votes