American Politics VII: Virginia Reel

[Kowani]

LGBT veterans forced from the military for their sexual orientation and given other-than-honorable discharges will be able to receive full Veterans Affairs benefits

Tens of thousands of LGBT veterans forced from the military for their sexual orientation and given other-than-honorable discharges will be able to receive full Veterans Affairs benefits despite their dismissal status under a new move set to be announced Monday.

The change comes as the country approaches the 10th anniversary of repeal of the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” law which forced nearly 14,000 service members out of the ranks for admitting their sexual orientation. But the impact of the new VA announcement goes further than just those individuals, to potentially include troops who served before and after the law who may have been given bad performance reviews or intimidated into leaving the military because of their LGBT status.

Outside advocates estimate as many as 100,000 over the last 70 years may have been involuntarily separated from the military based on their sexual orientation. Data on how many received other-than-honorable discharges is not available. According to sources familiar with the pending announcement, VA officials plan a series of reviews of those veterans’ cases, with a presumption in favor of granting them benefits unless records give a clear reason to oppose that. The announcement to be released on Monday — the anniversary of the DADT repeal — includes VA Secretary Denis McDonough asserting that department officials have the authority to award those individuals full VA benefits if their case warrants, regardless of the discharge status.

Individuals with dishonorable discharges or clear criminal history documented in their service records will still not be granted benefits under the new plan.

The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was in place from 1993 to 2011. It prohibited LGBT service members from publicly discussing or acknowledging their sexual orientation, with a penalty of dismissal from the ranks if the truth was discovered. Before that, all LGBT individuals were barred completely from serving.

Gay rights advocates for years have noted that both before and while the DADT policy was in place, many military commanders biased against LGBT troops often issued bad conduct dismissals to those individuals — citing issues like substandard fitness reports or poor performance — to cover up bigotry or frustration related to issues of sexual orientation. That later prompted VA staff to deny benefits to those veterans, since their paperwork did not show honorable discharge status.

The new move will extend VA medical care, disability payouts, employment assistance and other benefits individuals previously blocked because of other-than-honorable discharges.

Department legal officials believe the change will not require any new legislative action or policy statements, because the department already has broad authority to interpret which veterans are eligible for department services.

White House officials are expected to mark the DADT repeal anniversary with an event on Monday. Exact timing on the VA announcement is unclear. VA officials declined comment on the pending news.

[Kowani]

I would like to award the prize of “dipshit of the year” to Joe Manchin

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is privately saying he thinks Congress should take a “strategic pause” until 2022 before voting on President Biden’s $3.5 trillion social-spending package, people familiar with the matter tell Axios. Manchin’s new timeline — if he insists on it — would disrupt the plans by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to vote on the budget reconciliation package this month.

Back home in West Virginia last week, Manchin told a group of employees at a Procter & Gamble facility in Martinsburg he wanted to pause all the talk about the $3.5 trillion bill until 2022, Axios was told.
Those semi-public comments track with some of his private conversations about how long he wants to impose the "strategic pause" he floated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed this month.
Manchin didn't give a specific timeline in his op-ed.

Any delay on the Democrat-only reconciliation package could imperil House passage of the separate $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, which Pelosi has promised to pass by Sept. 27.

House progressive lawmakers are publicly vowing to vote against the infrastructure bill if it's not paired with the $3.5 trillion bill to be passed through the budget reconciliation process.
But centrist Democrats are adamant the House pass the bipartisan bill first — next week.
[…]
The Democrats' strategy of passing the two pieces of legislation simultaneously will face a crucial test this coming week.

Last Friday, nine House centrists reminded Pelosi of her promise to hold a vote on the infrastructure bill by Sept. 27 — a week from Monday.
“We reiterate our appreciation for the Speaker’s public commitment to only bring a bill to the House floor that can garner the necessary 51 votes for passage in the Senate,” the nine lawmakers said in a joint statement. “We need legislation that can get out of the Senate and to the president’s desk.”
But progressives insist the bipartisan package will fail if leadership brings it to the floor for a vote before the reconciliation bill is passed.
“It won’t have sufficient votes to pass the House,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told Bloomberg.
What they're saying: Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House majority whip, suggested Sunday his party may need more time to resolve its differences.

“Sometimes, you have to kind of stop the clock to get to the goal,” he told CNN.
He also said of a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill: "It may be $3.5 [trillion]. It may be close to that, or it may be closer to something else."

[Cannot think of a name]

I would like to award the prize of “dipshit of the year” to Joe Manchin

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is privately saying he thinks Congress should take a “strategic pause” until 2022 before voting on President Biden’s $3.5 trillion social-spending package, people familiar with the matter tell Axios. Manchin’s new timeline — if he insists on it — would disrupt the plans by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to vote on the budget reconciliation package this month.

Back home in West Virginia last week, Manchin told a group of employees at a Procter & Gamble facility in Martinsburg he wanted to pause all the talk about the $3.5 trillion bill until 2022, Axios was told.
Those semi-public comments track with some of his private conversations about how long he wants to impose the "strategic pause" he floated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed this month.
Manchin didn't give a specific timeline in his op-ed.

Any delay on the Democrat-only reconciliation package could imperil House passage of the separate $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, which Pelosi has promised to pass by Sept. 27.

House progressive lawmakers are publicly vowing to vote against the infrastructure bill if it's not paired with the $3.5 trillion bill to be passed through the budget reconciliation process.
But centrist Democrats are adamant the House pass the bipartisan bill first — next week.
[…]
The Democrats' strategy of passing the two pieces of legislation simultaneously will face a crucial test this coming week.

Last Friday, nine House centrists reminded Pelosi of her promise to hold a vote on the infrastructure bill by Sept. 27 — a week from Monday.
“We reiterate our appreciation for the Speaker’s public commitment to only bring a bill to the House floor that can garner the necessary 51 votes for passage in the Senate,” the nine lawmakers said in a joint statement. “We need legislation that can get out of the Senate and to the president’s desk.”
But progressives insist the bipartisan package will fail if leadership brings it to the floor for a vote before the reconciliation bill is passed.
“It won’t have sufficient votes to pass the House,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told Bloomberg.
What they're saying: Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House majority whip, suggested Sunday his party may need more time to resolve its differences.

“Sometimes, you have to kind of stop the clock to get to the goal,” he told CNN.
He also said of a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill: "It may be $3.5 [trillion]. It may be close to that, or it may be closer to something else."

It's like he looked at the end of Lieberman's career and went, "I'm pretty sure I could be a bigger d-hole..."

[Thermodolia]

I like weird in campaigns. It's healthy to have more options to choose from, even if there's weird people running.

Meant write in campaign. Darn auto correct. You have no issue with someone who loses the primary running a write in campaign?

No. But that’s because I think primaries are fucking stupid and a waste of time and money

[San Lumen]

Meant write in campaign. Darn auto correct. You have no issue with someone who loses the primary running a write in campaign?

No. But that’s because I think primaries are fucking stupid and a waste of time and money

Why?

[Thermodolia]

https://www.axios.com/scoop-beto-plans-texas-comeback-governors-race-33a3ae1a-4c58-4e7a-9e44-26342d3128c9.html

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke is preparing to run for governor of Texas in 2022

Well that’s a loss.

After the whole “hell ya we are going to take your guns” debacle he’s not going to win anything in any state that’s any shade of red

[Thermodolia]

Oh. I don't keep up with that shit.

My wife is into tiktok but I find alot of the trends to be annoying as hell.

Wait you have a wife? And more shockingly a life outside NSG?

In all seriousness congrats however late it is

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/572 ... ell-report

Trump seeking challenger to McConnell as Senate GOP leader

[Thermodolia]

No. But that’s because I think primaries are fucking stupid and a waste of time and money

Why?

Because if parties really wanted to control things they should do it by themselves without state funds. I’m also in favor having no primaries because I don’t think there should be a restriction on how many people from a party should be on the ballot

[Dresderstan]

Why?

Because if parties really wanted to control things they should do it by themselves without state funds. I’m also in favor having no primaries because I don’t think there should be a restriction on how many people from a party should be on the ballot

Better yet, get rid of like 2/3 of the campaign time and force candidates to only campaign 1-2 months before the election, i.e. September to November, instead of campaigning for nearly the entire year.

[San Lumen]

Why?

Because if parties really wanted to control things they should do it by themselves without state funds. I’m also in favor having no primaries because I don’t think there should be a restriction on how many people from a party should be on the ballot

and then you risk locking one party out. That happened in the Lieutenant Governor election in 2018 in California. No Republican was on the general election ballot.

[Thermodolia]

Because if parties really wanted to control things they should do it by themselves without state funds. I’m also in favor having no primaries because I don’t think there should be a restriction on how many people from a party should be on the ballot

and then you risk locking one party out. That happened in the Lieutenant Governor election in 2018 in California. No Republican was on the general election ballot.

Well that’s stupid. California’s system is stupid because it still has a primary. There shouldn’t be a primary at all. Period.

So in this case you would have had republicans and democrats all on the ballot, kinda like the GA special senate election in 2020.

Also I wouldn’t have the system restricted to just FPTP; STV, SNTV, or IRV would be at play

[The Black Forrest]

Because if parties really wanted to control things they should do it by themselves without state funds. I’m also in favor having no primaries because I don’t think there should be a restriction on how many people from a party should be on the ballot

and then you risk locking one party out. That happened in the Lieutenant Governor election in 2018 in California. No Republican was on the general election ballot.

Republicans in Cali are basically an alternative party. It wouldn’t have mattered much.

They really won’t get an presence until Trumpism is forgotten.

[Thermodolia]

Because if parties really wanted to control things they should do it by themselves without state funds. I’m also in favor having no primaries because I don’t think there should be a restriction on how many people from a party should be on the ballot

Better yet, get rid of like 2/3 of the campaign time and force candidates to only campaign 1-2 months before the election, i.e. September to November, instead of campaigning for nearly the entire year.

I think we could probably get away with three months, August to November. Because really let’s face it, the actual campaign doesn’t really start until late July or early August anyway. The majority of campaign year is spent campaigning for the primaries.

Chuck the primaries out the window and you reduce the campaign to all of three months

[Dresderstan]

Better yet, get rid of like 2/3 of the campaign time and force candidates to only campaign 1-2 months before the election, i.e. September to November, instead of campaigning for nearly the entire year.

I think we could probably get away with three months, August to November. Because really let’s face it, the actual campaign doesn’t really start until late July or early August anyway. The majority of campaign year is spent campaigning for the primaries.

Chuck the primaries out the window and you reduce the campaign to all of three months

Okay that could also work, just a much reduced time to campaign would be much better than having to campaign for nearly the entire year til November. Also chuck out campaign donations from private businesses.

[Genivaria]

and then you risk locking one party out. That happened in the Lieutenant Governor election in 2018 in California. No Republican was on the general election ballot.

Well that’s stupid. California’s system is stupid because it still has a primary. There shouldn’t be a primary at all. Period.

So in this case you would have had republicans and democrats all on the ballot, kinda like the GA special senate election in 2020.

Also I wouldn’t have the system restricted to just FPTP; STV, SNTV, or IRV would be at play

Would also mean there's less ways that the party establishment could collude to eliminate any anti-establishment candidates.

[San Lumen]

and then you risk locking one party out. That happened in the Lieutenant Governor election in 2018 in California. No Republican was on the general election ballot.

Well that’s stupid. California’s system is stupid because it still has a primary. There shouldn’t be a primary at all. Period.

So in this case you would have had republicans and democrats all on the ballot, kinda like the GA special senate election in 2020.

Also I wouldn’t have the system restricted to just FPTP; STV, SNTV, or IRV would be at play

Its a top two primary. I suppose Jungle primaries are ok but there is the risk of lockout of one party or multiple ones.

I have no issue with IRV.

[Thermodolia]

I think we could probably get away with three months, August to November. Because really let’s face it, the actual campaign doesn’t really start until late July or early August anyway. The majority of campaign year is spent campaigning for the primaries.

Chuck the primaries out the window and you reduce the campaign to all of three months

Okay that could also work, just a much reduced time to campaign would be much better than having to campaign for nearly the entire year til November. Also chuck out campaign donations from private businesses.

Agreed.

Well that’s stupid. California’s system is stupid because it still has a primary. There shouldn’t be a primary at all. Period.

So in this case you would have had republicans and democrats all on the ballot, kinda like the GA special senate election in 2020.

Also I wouldn’t have the system restricted to just FPTP; STV, SNTV, or IRV would be at play

Would also mean there's less ways that the party establishment could collude to eliminate any anti-establishment candidates.

Ya it would totally destroy them, which is why it will never happen.

But ya if implemented my electoral reforms would destroy the power of the establishment and the power of the two party system.

[Luminesa]

I would like to award the prize of “dipshit of the year” to Joe Manchin

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is privately saying he thinks Congress should take a “strategic pause” until 2022 before voting on President Biden’s $3.5 trillion social-spending package, people familiar with the matter tell Axios. Manchin’s new timeline — if he insists on it — would disrupt the plans by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to vote on the budget reconciliation package this month.

Back home in West Virginia last week, Manchin told a group of employees at a Procter & Gamble facility in Martinsburg he wanted to pause all the talk about the $3.5 trillion bill until 2022, Axios was told.
Those semi-public comments track with some of his private conversations about how long he wants to impose the "strategic pause" he floated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed this month.
Manchin didn't give a specific timeline in his op-ed.

Any delay on the Democrat-only reconciliation package could imperil House passage of the separate $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, which Pelosi has promised to pass by Sept. 27.

House progressive lawmakers are publicly vowing to vote against the infrastructure bill if it's not paired with the $3.5 trillion bill to be passed through the budget reconciliation process.
But centrist Democrats are adamant the House pass the bipartisan bill first — next week.
[…]
The Democrats' strategy of passing the two pieces of legislation simultaneously will face a crucial test this coming week.

Last Friday, nine House centrists reminded Pelosi of her promise to hold a vote on the infrastructure bill by Sept. 27 — a week from Monday.
“We reiterate our appreciation for the Speaker’s public commitment to only bring a bill to the House floor that can garner the necessary 51 votes for passage in the Senate,” the nine lawmakers said in a joint statement. “We need legislation that can get out of the Senate and to the president’s desk.”
But progressives insist the bipartisan package will fail if leadership brings it to the floor for a vote before the reconciliation bill is passed.
“It won’t have sufficient votes to pass the House,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told Bloomberg.
What they're saying: Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House majority whip, suggested Sunday his party may need more time to resolve its differences.

“Sometimes, you have to kind of stop the clock to get to the goal,” he told CNN.
He also said of a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill: "It may be $3.5 [trillion]. It may be close to that, or it may be closer to something else."

Honestly, Biden needs to write a, “No,” spelled with an executive order for Manchin to shut up.

Knowing that one of the Senators pushing for Pelosi to hold the vote now is one of mine (probably), I’m hoping we can actually get some sort of legislation going soon. Progressives need to stop playing this “Bachlorette-will-they-won’t-they” game and vote.

[Thermodolia]

Well that’s stupid. California’s system is stupid because it still has a primary. There shouldn’t be a primary at all. Period.

So in this case you would have had republicans and democrats all on the ballot, kinda like the GA special senate election in 2020.

Also I wouldn’t have the system restricted to just FPTP; STV, SNTV, or IRV would be at play

Its a top two primary. I suppose Jungle primaries are ok but there is the risk of lockout of one party or multiple ones.

A primary is still fucking stupid. Doesn’t matter what it’s called, I’m not looking for a primary. Stop thinking in the way of primaries, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about having a general election with whatever candidates you have on the ballot and then you have Election Day, if no candidate gets above 50% then you go to the second round with the top two or four candidates running a few weeks later.

I have no issue with IRV.

Ok but what about the others? What about STV or SNTV? Or what about the Alaska system, where you have everyone who wants to run on the ballot and then the top four run a few weeks later in an election by IRV?

The thing is that I want to smash the system. I want to destroy the idea that you have to beholden to the two parties or the party establishment.

[San Lumen]

Its a top two primary. I suppose Jungle primaries are ok but there is the risk of lockout of one party or multiple ones.

A primary is still fucking stupid. Doesn’t matter what it’s called, I’m not looking for a primary. Stop thinking in the way of primaries, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about having a general election with whatever candidates you have on the ballot and then you have Election Day, if no candidate gets above 50% then you go to the second round with the top two or four candidates running a few weeks later.

I have no issue with IRV.

Ok but what about the others? What about STV or SNTV? Or what about the Alaska system, where you have everyone who wants to run on the ballot and then the top four run a few weeks later in an election by IRV?

The thing is that I want to smash the system. I want to destroy the idea that you have to beholden to the two parties or the party establishment.

Alaska’s new system is very intriguing. I’m curious to see how it works out.

[Eahland]

Well that’s stupid. California’s system is stupid because it still has a primary. There shouldn’t be a primary at all. Period.

So in this case you would have had republicans and democrats all on the ballot, kinda like the GA special senate election in 2020.

Also I wouldn’t have the system restricted to just FPTP; STV, SNTV, or IRV would be at play

Its a top two primary. I suppose Jungle primaries are ok but there is the risk of lockout of one party or multiple ones.

I have no issue with IRV.

Jungle primaries are fucking awful. They have all of the drawbacks of primaries (locking out minor candidates), plus all of the drawbacks of not having primaries (vote-splitting meaning results are not representative of actual voter support), with none of the advantages of either.

[San Lumen]

Its a top two primary. I suppose Jungle primaries are ok but there is the risk of lockout of one party or multiple ones.

I have no issue with IRV.

Jungle primaries are fucking awful. They have all of the drawbacks of primaries (locking out minor candidates), plus all of the drawbacks of not having primaries (vote-splitting meaning results are not representative of actual voter support), with none of the advantages of either.

What do you propose instead?

[Eahland]

Jungle primaries are fucking awful. They have all of the drawbacks of primaries (locking out minor candidates), plus all of the drawbacks of not having primaries (vote-splitting meaning results are not representative of actual voter support), with none of the advantages of either.

What do you propose instead?

Pretty much anything, honestly. Regular party primaries. Instant-runoff or approval voting or the like to make primaries unnecessary. Hell, even not having a primary at all and just having a jungle general election wouldn't produce worse results, and would save time and money.

Consider: The way California's jungle primaries work, if the Republicans are organized and the Democrats divided (and what are the odds of that), it's possible for two Republicans who command maybe 40% of the primary vote between them to lock any non-Republican candidates out of the general election entirely.

[North Washington Republic]

Its a top two primary. I suppose Jungle primaries are ok but there is the risk of lockout of one party or multiple ones.

I have no issue with IRV.

Jungle primaries are fucking awful. They have all of the drawbacks of primaries (locking out minor candidates), plus all of the drawbacks of not having primaries (vote-splitting meaning results are not representative of actual voter support), with none of the advantages of either.

Jungle primaries have a racist AF history. They were particularly design to disenfranchise black candidates