Debt ceiling fight not even a real threat??
Hey guys! It occurs to me that the debt ceiling hostage situation is pure and utter pageantry and theater by the republicans. The thing that jumps out to me about the whole situation is that they are threatening something they simply cannot do. It is pure posturing from the standpoint that they are wholly to blame for subverting democratic legislation in an obvious way that most people will see as their fault for doing and against democratic means to force out-of-touch policies that the majority of Americans don’t want. If most Americans wanted them to get their agenda done, we would have voted for them to have majority power. They are a reactionary, obstructionist, minority party out of step with most Americans on almost every issue. From their attacks on women’s rights, to the maligning of marginalized groups like immigrants and LGBTQIA+; to the political violence they promote their followers to commit; to the ten year old rape victim in Indiana they want to force to have their rapist’s child; two-thirds of all covid deaths happening in Red States due to their policies of ignoring public health guidelines recommended by scientific institutions, or the ridiculous tax code that transfers massive wealth to the filthy rich from the poor; or the open discussion on cutting social security, Medicare; or burn pit victims from the military being left to die without any real effort to fund their medical care(I know they eventually funded this, but only after much public shaming from John Stuart after they voted it down and made up specious arguments as to why they shouldn’t pass the law); to the mass shootings and gun violence that occurs every few hours with almost nothing more than thoughts and prayers being offered as some sort of solution (In fact some days, more civilians die in America from gun deaths than in Ukraine where there is an active war). Or even the fact that their most popular figure is a man who sexually assaults women, exploits loop holes in the tax code to avoid any real tax payments, commits financial fraud, steals classified documents and openly lies to the FBI about hording them, and actually tried a coup attempt with paramilitary forces to kill his Vice president and members of congress to install himself as president despite the fact that he has no evidence of voter fraud and yet continues to this day to promote the idea that the election was stolen with little to no legal recourse. But I digress…. They need those social security check recipients, wall street companies, billionaires, and poor people they trick to vote for them (despite not fighting for anything in their interest) to keep humming along to be able to keep them in their elected positions. If the voters in red states stop receiving their social security checks, VA health care, or disability checks and it is because the republicans are obviously to blame with a manufactured crisis, then those voters would be quite upset and may consider voting a different way next time. If those wall street companies lose billions in the market, then they may consider not funding those specific republican’s campaigns next time. If private equity companies lose huge value in their assets, then those companies also may consider a different horse to fund next time around (like maybe a corporate democrat that will not lose them billions). Here’s the question: Do you agree that the debt ceiling “crisis” is just posturing a threat of something they cannot do because of the deeply destructive self-harm it would cause to their party, the country, and the world, and for such small potato reasons like work requirements for SNAP recipients? Or a pipeline that Joe Manchin would have gotten passed through congress anyway? In turn, the next question is: Biden failed to invoke the 14th amendment or mint the coin, or pass legislation when democrats had full control of the white house, Senate, and house, to remove this manufactured crisis from ever happening again. Do you think that this was done intentionally (or even just inadvertently), to give this minority, obstructionist, anti-democratic, group a perception of having won something without risking anything being won of significance? If they truly cannot default on the government’s payments and credit, then could this crisis be an easily mitigated release valve for republicans so they can throw their constituents something of a “victory” when they cannot actually win a majority of elections on democratic terms?
Future of Abortion
I appreciate when you explain that most Americans have much more nuanced views on abortion than the caricatures that talking heads use to justify extreme positions. You've mentioned here that a national abortion ban is singularly unpopular, and there are several compromise positions such as the 15 week ban that have much better support. I wonder, how popular is the idea of having no federal abortion policy at all and allowing the states to make their own policies? Could that be a lifeline for Rob DeSantos if he faces criticism for the 6 week ban passed in Florida? Side note: isn't it nice to know that what politicians say about abortion now might actually reflect their intentions for policy instead of meaningless posturing?
Dissed
I don't know how many of these you actually read now that you have so many subscribers but Krystal, I feel dissed. You may not have wanted to hear what a candidate for President has to say, but I, your customer to the tune of a pretty penny, did. I know your opinion, I've heard it and as it happens, I share it but I wanted to hear what he had to say and you just cut him off and refused to address his question in return. Sorry, that's just plain old bad manners. I was genuinely shocked. In the now many years that I have been listening to both you and Saagar, this is the first time that I have had cause to question your integrity as a journalist and commentator. Unlike some, I will not cancel because you have both been too interesting to date. But I think it warrants an apology both to your invited guest and to me who didn't get to hear what a man who has some sound thoughts on a number of other things had to say on this controversial subject. If I were RFk jr. I wouldn't come back for a second round. If he does manage to swing a debate, that would be a shame. Ask yourself if you wouild have let your children behave like this. PS: Glad to hear Emily critique your old set.
Can you please report on the plight of Dutch (and Canadian) farmers?
Can you please dig into the details of the Dutch farmers and the nuances of applying arbitrary politically set climate change targets rather than working with the farmers themselves to achieve realistic sustainability goals. These politically set targets threaten to wipe out these independent smaller scale farmers and may not be taking a holistic long term approach to the issue which could be setting themselves up for failure rather than long term sustainability. This is an issue Canadian farmers are facing as well with many farmer pointing to their inherent interest is efficiency and sustainability which has been ignored by the government, in favour of politically motivated targets. This is just one source that speaks to the issue: https://www.thefp.com/p/the-revolt-of-the-dutch-farmers?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=260347&post_id=125158174&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email