The Politics Thread

[CyHawk_Cub]

I guess I don't get this point. The only way McConnell can pass a bill is partially with Democratic support. They technically already did line up Republicans behind a stimulus bill and got 51 votes, but without Democratic support it didn't get past the filibuster.

P.S. This does not mean that I am advocating for the Democrats to just accept that proposal. But I am just pointing out that because passage through the Senate would require a bipartisan coalition, they would need to strike the deal first and then have it pass the Senate, not the other way around.

You don’t understand the ridiculousness in arguing that one party who hasn’t shown the ability to pass anything has the high ground on the other party who has actually passed something? I think we’re just of different viewpoints here.

Maybe we are. It's like when the Republicans were upset because the Republican House was passing budgets and the Democratic Senate wasn't. The House can pass things with just the majority party. The Senate with rare exceptions have to have both parties agree with legislation. It's fundamentally different, so to compare one place passing something and the other not is a flawed comparison.

At a fundamental level, your question indicates strongly to me that you presuppose Republicans want to/are capable of governing in the first place. IMO, history (not necessarily only of the recent vintage) and current events belie that POV. I most definitely am not willing to engage in thought exercises wherein GOPers are viewed as equal partners in responsible governance. That world simply doesn't exist, JMO.

[CoolHandLuke]

You don’t understand the ridiculousness in arguing that one party who hasn’t shown the ability to pass anything has the high ground on the other party who has actually passed something? I think we’re just of different viewpoints here.

Maybe we are. It's like when the Republicans were upset because the Republican House was passing budgets and the Democratic Senate wasn't. The House can pass things with just the majority party. The Senate with rare exceptions have to have both parties agree with legislation. It's fundamentally different, so to compare one place passing something and the other not is a flawed comparison.

At a fundamental level, your question indicates strongly to me that you presuppose Republicans want to/are capable of governing in the first place. IMO, history (not necessarily only of the recent vintage) and current events belie that POV. I most definitely am not willing to engage in thought exercises wherein GOPers are viewed as equal partners in responsible governance. That world simply doesn't exist, JMO.

This is exactly what I wanted to say but you said it so much better than I could come up with. The Republicans fundamentally don't want the government to do things and they win if nothing passes.

[Banedon]

[gflore34]

Maybe we are. It's like when the Republicans were upset because the Republican House was passing budgets and the Democratic Senate wasn't. The House can pass things with just the majority party. The Senate with rare exceptions have to have both parties agree with legislation. It's fundamentally different, so to compare one place passing something and the other not is a flawed comparison.

At a fundamental level, your question indicates strongly to me that you presuppose Republicans want to/are capable of governing in the first place. IMO, history (not necessarily only of the recent vintage) and current events belie that POV. I most definitely am not willing to engage in thought exercises wherein GOPers are viewed as equal partners in responsible governance. That world simply doesn't exist, JMO.

This is exactly what I wanted to say but you said it so much better than I could come up with. The Republicans fundamentally don't want the government to do things and they win if nothing passes.

I know what you're saying and it's true, just strikes me hypocritical when they're OK with the government telling whom you can marry, what choices you can make with your body, you're sexual identification, etc. It's no longer a question of the the government doing things, dealing with COVID has gone way beyond just the government doing things.

[stitchface]

At a fundamental level, your question indicates strongly to me that you presuppose Republicans want to/are capable of governing in the first place. IMO, history (not necessarily only of the recent vintage) and current events belie that POV. I most definitely am not willing to engage in thought exercises wherein GOPers are viewed as equal partners in responsible governance. That world simply doesn't exist, JMO.

This is exactly what I wanted to say but you said it so much better than I could come up with. The Republicans fundamentally don't want the government to do things and they win if nothing passes.

I know what you're saying and it's true, just strikes me hypocritical when they're OK with the government telling whom you can marry, what choices you can make with your body, you're sexual identification, etc. It's no longer a question of the the government doing things, dealing with COVID has gone way beyond just the government doing things.

I don't think the GOP cares about any of those issues - that's just how they get votes.

[CubColtPacer]

You don’t understand the ridiculousness in arguing that one party who hasn’t shown the ability to pass anything has the high ground on the other party who has actually passed something? I think we’re just of different viewpoints here.

Maybe we are. It's like when the Republicans were upset because the Republican House was passing budgets and the Democratic Senate wasn't. The House can pass things with just the majority party. The Senate with rare exceptions have to have both parties agree with legislation. It's fundamentally different, so to compare one place passing something and the other not is a flawed comparison.

At a fundamental level, your question indicates strongly to me that you presuppose Republicans want to/are capable of governing in the first place. IMO, history (not necessarily only of the recent vintage) and current events belie that POV. I most definitely am not willing to engage in thought exercises wherein GOPers are viewed as equal partners in responsible governance. That world simply doesn't exist, JMO.

No, I'm not presupposing that. If the original tweet had said that I don't believe that plan is going to work because McConnell doesn't actually want a deal at any price, I would have just scrolled on by.

But asking him to prove he wants a deal by doing something that is impossible is also too high of a standard. McConnell couldn't get a Republican sized deal through the Senate right now even if every Republican senator wanted it really, really badly. It's just not how the Senate works.

So the intent of the tweet is likely right, but the example used was wrong. And since that's a common mistake through the years about the Senate, I decided to point it out.

[Cubfanintheknow]

Maybe we are. It's like when the Republicans were upset because the Republican House was passing budgets and the Democratic Senate wasn't. The House can pass things with just the majority party. The Senate with rare exceptions have to have both parties agree with legislation. It's fundamentally different, so to compare one place passing something and the other not is a flawed comparison.

At a fundamental level, your question indicates strongly to me that you presuppose Republicans want to/are capable of governing in the first place. IMO, history (not necessarily only of the recent vintage) and current events belie that POV. I most definitely am not willing to engage in thought exercises wherein GOPers are viewed as equal partners in responsible governance. That world simply doesn't exist, JMO.

No, I'm not presupposing that. If the original tweet had said that I don't believe that plan is going to work because McConnell doesn't actually want a deal at any price, I would have just scrolled on by.

But asking him to prove he wants a deal by doing something that is impossible is also too high of a standard. McConnell couldn't get a Republican sized deal through the Senate right now even if every Republican senator wanted it really, really badly. It's just not how the Senate works.

So the intent of the tweet is likely right, but the example used was wrong. And since that's a common mistake through the years about the Senate, I decided to point it out.

This is untrue. The reality is, there is legislation sitting on McConnell's desk that he doesn't want to even bring to a vote. Doing so would expose his conservative peers into having to explain why legislation that would so obviously be of help to the American people did not pass. It also hasn't been very high on his agenda:

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump

[Banedon]

[CyHawk_Cub]

The Bravery! Caucus inside the GOP speaks out.

[CyHawk_Cub]

Conscientious objector GOPers also speak out!

[CubinNY]

At a fundamental level, your question indicates strongly to me that you presuppose Republicans want to/are capable of governing in the first place. IMO, history (not necessarily only of the recent vintage) and current events belie that POV. I most definitely am not willing to engage in thought exercises wherein GOPers are viewed as equal partners in responsible governance. That world simply doesn't exist, JMO.

No, I'm not presupposing that. If the original tweet had said that I don't believe that plan is going to work because McConnell doesn't actually want a deal at any price, I would have just scrolled on by.

But asking him to prove he wants a deal by doing something that is impossible is also too high of a standard. McConnell couldn't get a Republican sized deal through the Senate right now even if every Republican senator wanted it really, really badly. It's just not how the Senate works.

So the intent of the tweet is likely right, but the example used was wrong. And since that's a common mistake through the years about the Senate, I decided to point it out.

This is untrue. The reality is, there is legislation sitting on McConnell's desk that he doesn't want to even bring to a vote. Doing so would expose his conservative peers into having to explain why legislation that would so obviously be of help to the American people did not pass. It also hasn't been very high on his agenda:

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump

Right. It is a common practice in parliamentary procedure. In Alabama, when we were trying to get Autism legislation passed, the first year they sent it to a "blue-ribbon committee" to be studied. The committee didn't meet until after the legislative session was over. The second year, they put it in a committee that didn't vote it out of committee until 1 day before the session was over and they were passing a budget (In Alabama the ONLY thing the legislature is mandated to do is pass a budget, and they wait until the last day to do it) so it didn't' come to a vote. The third year, they put it in a committee whose chairman's biggest contributor was Blue Cross of Alabama and he tried to amend the bill to death. The only event that caused it to get out of committee is three of the most prominent legislators decided to band together and threaten to stall any bills until the Autism bill came to a vote. It passed unanimously in the HOR and only one person voted against it in the Senate (the chair of the committee). They didn't want it to come up for a vote because no one wanted to vote against the bill even though most of them were against it. When it finally did they were all shamed into voting, yes, and then congratulated themselves for a job well done.

[CubColtPacer]

At a fundamental level, your question indicates strongly to me that you presuppose Republicans want to/are capable of governing in the first place. IMO, history (not necessarily only of the recent vintage) and current events belie that POV. I most definitely am not willing to engage in thought exercises wherein GOPers are viewed as equal partners in responsible governance. That world simply doesn't exist, JMO.

No, I'm not presupposing that. If the original tweet had said that I don't believe that plan is going to work because McConnell doesn't actually want a deal at any price, I would have just scrolled on by.

But asking him to prove he wants a deal by doing something that is impossible is also too high of a standard. McConnell couldn't get a Republican sized deal through the Senate right now even if every Republican senator wanted it really, really badly. It's just not how the Senate works.

So the intent of the tweet is likely right, but the example used was wrong. And since that's a common mistake through the years about the Senate, I decided to point it out.

This is untrue. The reality is, there is legislation sitting on McConnell's desk that he doesn't want to even bring to a vote. Doing so would expose his conservative peers into having to explain why legislation that would so obviously be of help to the American people did not pass. It also hasn't been very high on his agenda:

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump

That is true, although it's tangential to my point. I feel bad for jumping in here with a technical argument. I wasn't trying to defend Senate Republicans.

[Cubfanintheknow]

No, I'm not presupposing that. If the original tweet had said that I don't believe that plan is going to work because McConnell doesn't actually want a deal at any price, I would have just scrolled on by.

But asking him to prove he wants a deal by doing something that is impossible is also too high of a standard. McConnell couldn't get a Republican sized deal through the Senate right now even if every Republican senator wanted it really, really badly. It's just not how the Senate works.

So the intent of the tweet is likely right, but the example used was wrong. And since that's a common mistake through the years about the Senate, I decided to point it out.

This is untrue. The reality is, there is legislation sitting on McConnell's desk that he doesn't want to even bring to a vote. Doing so would expose his conservative peers into having to explain why legislation that would so obviously be of help to the American people did not pass. It also hasn't been very high on his agenda:

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump

That is true, although it's tangential to my point. I feel bad for jumping in here with a technical argument. I wasn't trying to defend Senate Republicans.

That's a given.

[UMFan83]

I didn’t realize how close some of these House races are. Here are 4 really close ones:

* CA-21: R leads D by 1,729 votes
* CA-25: R leads D by 405 votes
* IA-2: R leads D by 6 votes
* NY-22: R leads D by 12 votes

Crazy that the Republican is leading all of those close races

[gflore34]

This is untrue. The reality is, there is legislation sitting on McConnell's desk that he doesn't want to even bring to a vote. Doing so would expose his conservative peers into having to explain why legislation that would so obviously be of help to the American people did not pass. It also hasn't been very high on his agenda:

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump

That is true, although it's tangential to my point. I feel bad for jumping in here with a technical argument. I wasn't trying to defend Senate Republicans.

That's a given.

Yet, to the best of my knowledge Trump is the only one doing the talking, flooding the electorate with disinformation. Why aren't Pelosi and company harping on the fact they've created and passed helpful legislation that's dying on McConnell' desk? If Biden' got to deal with a GOP majority Senate he's got to make it loud and clear who's creating the roadblocks, who's not interested in helping people, be as relentless as Trump has been with his lies. It also puzzles me as to why they haven't gone after Trump, I mean those who voted for him justified their vote on his business/deal making acumen. Where the horsefeathers has that been, especially now? I'd gone after the WH regarding deal maker supreme or lack there of.

[Banedon]

Apparently this is from some Dem PAC. Which is sort of impressive. Not the kind of thing I'd expect from them.

[CyHawk_Cub]

Apparently this is from some Dem PAC. Which is sort of impressive. Not the kind of thing I'd expect from them.

It's the "Really American PAC" that makes it a winner for me.

Also, the Crooked Media guys were all "it'd be too bad if several campaigns were started on social media decrying GA GOPers failures in doing enough to support President Trump" on their main podcast this week.

[gflore34]

Apparently this is from some Dem PAC. Which is sort of impressive. Not the kind of thing I'd expect from them.

It's the "Really American PAC" that makes it a winner for me.

Also, the Crooked Media guys were all "it'd be too bad if several campaigns were started on social media decrying GA GOPers failures in doing enough to support President Trump" on their main podcast this week.

It'd be so fitting if Trump' visit helps in turning over the Senate, just perfect, given he's unable to get nearly anything right, his narcissism and vindictiveness, would they really want him campaigning on their behalf?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Good on Rudy for admitting he has committed Federal crimes.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Good on Rudy for admitting he has committed Federal crimes.

with any luck, he'll double down on "I did nothing wrong" leaving him open to prosecution later

[CyHawk_Cub]

[Banedon]

[Banedon]

The only shock here of course, is who is saying it...

[Banedon]

Uh oh....somebody's in trouble....

[CubinNY]

The only shock here of course, is who is saying it...

Now he's going to meet with Trump. Trump knows it's all over. What is going on now is the grift. He's going to find a way to pay his family and himself out of the money he's getting now.