Yup. If Sinema/Manchin didn’t exist there would be someone else
Someone else would probably be more vulnerable to arm-twisting. There are probably some Dems who in their hearts don’t think such things are good ideas but are too cowardly to stick their necks out and be the deciding vote. Manchin’s spine is much stiffer and Sinema is apparently batshit crazy and can’t be reasoned with.
I am not sure. Your position isn’t unreasonable, but at the same time, even if you have a very cynical attitude towards Democrats in the senate, you still have to agree that a bunch of them really want to yield the power they have.
That theory kind of disintegrates when you think about the massive amounts of corporate money they’re taking.
Not really. They also think capitalism isn’t broken.
This person is on drugs
https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1574771512988639232?s=46&t=Zr2XUAzizBb89SJS5kjfdg
4 Likes
Hearing off for tomorrow, delayed because of the hurricane
NPR report said she testified today.
1 Like
Here’s a stupid question: when someone “testifies” does that mean they’re under oath? I read that article just to see if she was under oath and, of course, it never explicitly says that. It never uses the term “sworn testimony” either.
After the publication of her communications with Meadows Thomas said she was willing to appear, and months of negotiations followed.
Is part of that negotiation that her meeting with the committee will not require her to be under oath? Gee it seems like that would be a relevant piece of information. Or maybe it just doesn’t matter; I’d bet substantial $ people like Secret Service agents have lied to the committee and there will be no consequences for that.
I think “testify” definitely implies under oath and I’m seeing some stories from earlier in the week that she would be under oath.
I read once that “testify” and “testicle” come from the same root and ancient Romans or whoever used to literally swear on their balls. Quite possibly this is horseshit though.
3 Likes
The aforementioned myth is that the Latin word comes from a purported Roman practice of men grabbing each other’s or their own testicles when swearing an oath. The myth dates to the medieval period and is simply not true. We have many accounts of Romans swearing oaths, and not one involves touching anyone’s testicles. The myth, in fact, has the etymological flow reversed. The Latin testis , and therefore the English testicle , come from the metaphor of the testicles being a testament to a man’s virility.
But while the etymology of testify and testificare has nothing to do with it, the notion of swearing on someone’s testicles does possess a grain of truth. The practice is famously alluded to in two passages from Genesis.
There’s more for those interested.
4 Likes
If it’s all the same to you, I’ll continue to imagine Romans constantly grabbing each other’s balls during official proceedings, tyvm.
1 Like
Far be it from me to kink-shame.
1 Like
Oh wow, we got Gini to testify. And it only took less than two years!
1 Like
Ah well, nevertheless
