@revelette1,
Always check the sources of 'news'.
Nimh was just part of an interesting discussion on FB about this chart
I try to stay within the circle at the top. If someone posts something from a source outside of the circle, I try to confirm/cross-reference it there. If it's not confirmed there ... then it might be entertaining but I probably won't trust it.
@hightor,
hightor wrote: If McConnell wanted to play nice he could add sweeteners to any bill up for consideration but he doesn't have to and he probably won't.
and may not be able to - he's got to get stuff Paul Ryan will agree to as well.
Because the Democratic Party is full of the same war criminals and terrorists that make up the Repuglican Party.
Edgar. I understand that in your perfect world you’d have 100 senators and 438 Representatives exactly like Bernie Sanders. I’m just going to focus on the Senate because the numbers are easier but we can assume the same for the House.
You may even be willing to settle for Super-Majorities of just 60 Bernie’s in the Senate. All these Bernie’s would agree all the time and vote in lockstep.
a) 60 Bernie’s- Edgar’s ideal
Like all ideals, they’re a goal but not really realistic for a number of reasons. I’m going to list some options below and I’m curious If you or anyone would comment on the pros and cons of each.
b) 49 Bernie’s and 51 Mitch’s
c) 20 Bernie’s, 31 Hillary’s, 49 Mitch’s
d) 10 Bernie’s, 10 Nancy’s, 30 Hillary’s, 40 Mitch’s
That's a great chart, ehBeth — appreciate you putting it here.
And you're right about Ryan and the need to placate the rabid rightists in the House. I've got a feeling that the best we can hope for is for the center-left to gain substantial power in a few years — '24? — and then go to work undoing the damage done by this administration.
@ehBeth,
oops that was 2.0
this is the most recent version
the sources in the green box pretty much line up with the ones in the circle in 2.0
from
http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com
@revelette1,
Budget talks progress, as Senate Dems drop Dreamer demand(Politico)
I agree with the House. We have leverage right now, we might not have anything to bargain with after the Feb. deadline and we'll be stuck with whatever republicans and Trump comes up when DACA ends. Not to mention spending way too much on defense and wars. I don't understand why we are not winding down in all the places we are at now that the IS seems to be better than it was. I mean we can support local fighters (rather than abandoning them like we are during right this minute with the Kurdish fighters who are fighting IS) without having to put so much of our own Troops and resources into those places. We should spend more of our money at home.
@hightor,
It doesn't mean we have to give in to everything the republicans wants. I say go out with a bang and make some noise, we could use to our advantage on midterm elections. After all that is how republicans got where they are now, by ignoring the nay sayers and just made noise and kept on point with it. If we keep rolling over and laying down to be stepped on like a dirty welcome mat, we will end up losing all non-discretionary spending and with the wealthiest ripping the rest us off. I am saying, I may just end up being with the likes of Sanders if democrats keeps caving in.
@ehBeth,
The young Turks was discussing a Politico piece. I don't see Politico on the chart?
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:this is the most recent version
I think Fox is being misrepresented on the chart. Liberals automatically call it a falsehood when they dislike hearing the truth. Fox is being downrated for presenting facts that liberals dislike hearing about.
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:I don't see Politico on the chart?
They're on the left side of the fact reporters.
I'd never thought of Political or The Hill as left or right before. I just went to whatever one was originating the breaking story that I was trying to read.
I wonder how one determines if a city is liberal or conservative for purposes of evaluating their local newspapers.
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:Not to mention spending way too much on defense and wars.
Sure. Let's just let the bad guys come in and massacre us.
@revelette1,
It's in the green square at the top - you might have to zoom it a bit as I had to squash it down to make it fit the page here.
@ehBeth,
Oh, my eyes are going a little. Had to put the zoomer on 200 to see it.
@ehBeth,
No Guardian, Intercept, Truthdig Or Truthout.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Well, it is "our" tax dollars which the government uses in the US budget isn't it?
Or are you referring to "our" when I said we could use for midterms? I assume Hightor is a democrat. I might be wrong though. I suppose I should have just democrats instead of our.
@Lash,
Lash wrote:No Guardian, Intercept, Truthdig Or Truthout.
The Guardian is there, under Washington Post and New York Times -- just over the border from "fact reporters" on the "complex analysis" side.
@revelette1,
Yes of course it is, but please don't pretend that your usage was predicated on your identity as simply a citizen.
@Finn dAbuzz,
I honestly don't know what you are implying or leading up to. You are going to have spell it out for me.
