CubColtPacer wrote:CyHawk_Cub wrote:CubColtPacer wrote:
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.