5 ms·

It's political. (I don't mean that as a negative, just reality.) The US is coming up on an election. The party in power is extremely unpopular right now, and

It's political. (I don't mean that as a negative, just reality.) The US is coming up on an election. The party in power is extremely unpopular right now, and about to get walloped according to polls. Polling shows that inflation is a big driver for their unpopularity. So they're trying to square two semi-incompatible positions: support Ukraine via sanctions and fight inflation too.

themitigating 4y ago
You can support Ukraine and fight inflation, both are good actions. It's a level of sanctions that has to be adjusted properly. The wrong thing to do would be to drop all sanctions to try to lessen inflation in hopes of getting elected.
jimbob45 4y ago
>The party in power is...about to get walloped according to polls. I think this is the most overblown talking point right now. In the most favorable wet dream scenario for Republicans where every tossup goes their way[0], they're still only going to hold a 56-44 Senate lead over the Democrats. That's not filibuster-proof and certainly isn't the doomsday scenario that everyone keeps predicting. Keep in mind that Republican primaries have already screwed a lot of those races too. Herschel Walker, a man with a documented history of DV and a noted evolution-denier, will not be winning over Raphael Warnock no matter what the polls say. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Predictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elec...
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  It's not filibuster-proof, and it's even less veto-proof. But it would let the Republicans set the legislative agenda, and nothing would pass without their approval.
  - jimbob45 4y ago
    But that's basically true right now. The Democrats aren't getting anything done without the approval of Manchin and Sinema and still wouldn't post-2022. In 2014, the Republicans held 54 Senate seats after the election. In the very worst case for 2022, we're back to 2014. However, if you actually go look at the upcoming races for this year, it seems much more likely that we'll end up closer to a 50/50 split given how weak many of the Republican candidates are. The apocalypse scenario would be either party acquiring 67 seats in the Senate (to overrule presidential vetoes), which would obviate any need to win the presidency. However, anyone claiming that the Republicans are going to win 67 seats in 2022 is simply wrong.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      Yeah. I have no idea why Biden tried to govern as if he had a strong majority when he had a 50/50 Senate. He's from the Senate himself; he absolutely should have known how weak his hand was. He could have done some things with it anyway, but by playing it as if he had more than he does, he got shot down time after time, and wound up looking quite ineffective.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Yeah. I have no idea why Biden tried to govern as if he had a strong majority when he had a 50/50 Senate. There's no other way to govern. You govern like you can lead and Congress either does or doesn't follow, or you are an irrelevance. Biden got more of his agenda accomplished than he would have with any less aggressive approach. > he got shot down time after time, and wound up looking quite ineffective. Doing nothing risky let's you look ineffective without getting shot down, but it doesn't actually make you look effective. And if you get shot down—especially on something publicly popular—that’s a campaign issue. If you don't try, it's...nothing.

themitigating 4y ago

You can support Ukraine and fight inflation, both are good actions. It's a level of sanctions that has to be adjusted properly. The wrong thing to do would be to drop all sanctions to try to lessen inflation in hopes of getting elected.

jimbob45 4y ago

>The party in power is...about to get walloped according to polls. I think this is the most overblown talking point right now. In the most favorable wet dream scenario for Republicans where every tossup goes their way[0], they're still only going to hold a 56-44 Senate lead over the Democrats. That's not filibuster-proof and certainly isn't the doomsday scenario that everyone keeps predicting. Keep in mind that Republican primaries have already screwed a lot of those races too. Herschel Walker, a man with a documented history of DV and a noted evolution-denier, will not be winning over Raphael Warnock no matter what the polls say. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections#Predictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elec...

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
It's not filibuster-proof, and it's even less veto-proof. But it would let the Republicans set the legislative agenda, and nothing would pass without their approval.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  But that's basically true right now. The Democrats aren't getting anything done without the approval of Manchin and Sinema and still wouldn't post-2022. In 2014, the Republicans held 54 Senate seats after the election. In the very worst case for 2022, we're back to 2014. However, if you actually go look at the upcoming races for this year, it seems much more likely that we'll end up closer to a 50/50 split given how weak many of the Republican candidates are. The apocalypse scenario would be either party acquiring 67 seats in the Senate (to overrule presidential vetoes), which would obviate any need to win the presidency. However, anyone claiming that the Republicans are going to win 67 seats in 2022 is simply wrong.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Yeah. I have no idea why Biden tried to govern as if he had a strong majority when he had a 50/50 Senate. He's from the Senate himself; he absolutely should have known how weak his hand was. He could have done some things with it anyway, but by playing it as if he had more than he does, he got shot down time after time, and wound up looking quite ineffective.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Yeah. I have no idea why Biden tried to govern as if he had a strong majority when he had a 50/50 Senate. There's no other way to govern. You govern like you can lead and Congress either does or doesn't follow, or you are an irrelevance. Biden got more of his agenda accomplished than he would have with any less aggressive approach. > he got shot down time after time, and wound up looking quite ineffective. Doing nothing risky let's you look ineffective without getting shot down, but it doesn't actually make you look effective. And if you get shot down—especially on something publicly popular—that’s a campaign issue. If you don't try, it's...nothing.