To stop the stimulus package failing to get through? It needs to pass both houses, meaning it requires the support of at least 4 Republican senators.
Uhrm... d'you realise the self-contradiction here?
Sounds like trump is planning on nominating someone named Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court.
- Thread starter Worgen
- Start date
Oh-- the confirmation of Barrett, then?
The House could pull endless delaying tactics until after November 3rd, I suppose. I've never fully understood the role of delaying tactics in congressional politics; they just seem so aimless and pointless.
The point I'm making is that you're misrepresenting this as if it's some sort of "justice" for what the Democrats did under Obama which the Republicans haven't had payback for. But it's really not, because what the Democrats did was because of what the Republicans did before them, which was because of what the Democrats did before them, which was what the Republicans did before them, etc. It's not justice, it's a blood feud.
The concept of the judicial appointment system (not that I agree with political judicial appointments, but it's the US system so you've got to work with it) is supposed to be to ensure that judges are broadly acceptable to the country. Once it becomes stuffing it full of ideological extremists as the crudest of political footballs, one party then the other, then your judiciary will become more corrupt and your country will likely be heading for schism and disorder.
USA
In doing so though, they would also lose any ability to pass any economic relief at all, which should take priority over everything else right now.
Which Trump appeared to be saying he’d refuse to do anyway.
Who knows what Trump will and will not do at this point, he is all over the place. I don't even think trump knows what he will do until he does it. They need to at least pass this stimulus check first. I don't think they should give up on the economic package yet either regardless of what Trump said because Trump is going to be under EXTREME pressure to pass something before November due to how many businesses will fail between now and then. Trump is literally killing the economy by not passing this shit and telling the GOP to go big to at least kick this can into the new year. Otherwise it will be a very bleak winter.
Do you think Trump knows what he is going to do until he does it? I don't think anyone does at this point. He just flies by his arse and taking everyone with him with what he is going to do changing by the second. Chimpzy was right, this is who we have running the country right now:
Last edited:
We've all seen the playbook by now.
If Democrats hold up all government business to prevent the nomination, there'll be endless comments about how they have abandoned the people in this time of economic crisis.
If Democrats instead work to pass some form of economic stimulus, there'll be endless comments about how they let Trump run rampant with his judicial nominations.
Steve Bannon, Newt Gingrich, and the Heritage Foundation working together couldn't increase the benefits to Republicans' agenda. Funny how self-proclaimed leftists love rushing headlong to do conservatives' work for them.
If Democrats hold up all government business to prevent the nomination, there'll be endless comments about how they have abandoned the people in this time of economic crisis.
If Democrats instead work to pass some form of economic stimulus, there'll be endless comments about how they let Trump run rampant with his judicial nominations.
Steve Bannon, Newt Gingrich, and the Heritage Foundation working together couldn't increase the benefits to Republicans' agenda. Funny how self-proclaimed leftists love rushing headlong to do conservatives' work for them.
Last edited:
Yes, except last time we saw this playbook it was the Republicans holding up business as usual and it won them a majority in both houses and eventually the presidency.
Aye, but Republicans are much better at falling into line, and their voters won't abandon them if they filibuster & delay. We know from experience that whichever route the Democrats had taken-- compromise or refusal-- they'd come in for fierce blowback from their voterbase.
That seemed pretty straightforward. I recall that not too long ago, the Dems were coming in for some fierce criticism for some congressional compromise or another they'd struck (though without both houses, no bill would have passed at all). This time, they've stuck to their red line and refused to compromise on a lower amount in the stimulus bill, and they're coming in for fierce criticism for it.
Whichever way they'd gone, it'd alienate quite a few people. This kind of political catch-22 scenario simply doesn't afflict the Republican Party in the same way.
It reminds me a little of the kind of no-win scenarios that Jeremy Corbyn frequently found himself in. If he bows to The Queen, he's a hypocrite, a flip-flopper, a self-serving empty politician; if he doesn't bow to The Queen, he's an unpatriotic, Britain-hating republican.
Last edited:
Really going for that 'low content post' approach, eh? Is it a dirty protest at the change of moderation rules, or just upping the post-count?
I have no idea what the posting rules are. I’m just genuinely confused. Your argument feels like it’s coming from another reality.
Conservatives like tradition. They will go to great lengths, like being PC, shaming, ostracising, cancelling, punching, shooting and lynching to protect that tradition.
Progressives on the other hand are trying to create something new. This means they might have a variety of ideas on offer. This makes it far harder to rally behind because Socialism isn’t Communism isn’t Anarchism
Old adage: "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line". Republican voters are quite infamous for their willingness to - as a republican acquaintance of mine self-describes - "hold their nose and vote for <the Republican candidate>". It's pronounced enough that there's a case to be made that the central tenet of modern Republicanism is basically "for all my candidate's flaws, at least they aren't a Democrat". Meanwhile, Democrats can be assured that everything they do can and will be held against them not only by Republicans but also by their voter base.
Take the recent check talks as a case in point. People are forced out of work because the pandemic and need some income to avoid homelessness or even death. $600 per week was approved up to late July. Democrats try to get that extended through December. Republicans argue that encourages a lazy working class and says that they'll go no higher than $400. Democrats say that's not sufficient and will cost people their homes, lives, and force many below (or further below) the poverty line. Trump says "You won't agree to the republican's terms? Then you get nothing". Democrats get the blame for "not negotiating" (despite it being Trump who walked away) and not accepting the $400. But what would have happened if they had accepted the $400? Well, we've seen that in the other threads: They get blamed for compromising on a position that they shouldn't have compromised on, and doing so out of malice at that. How was that other users so quaintly put it? Oh yes...
Last edited:
So watching Feinstein ask Barrett ask direct question about the ACA and she has pretty well put it out there that she will rule against the ACA, and she essentially said that millions of people dying from her decision doesn't even factor in to her decision at all. So yea, she is indifferent to the fact that her decision will cause people to die. Just lovely. Was pretty nauseating listening to her.
Her interpretation of the constitution is the most ignorant and narrow that there is, in that she thinks that the constitutional law ONLY applies as it does at the time it was written, thus we would have to write a new constitution every few years under her beliefs for it to be able to keep up with everything that has come since. She doe not feel that the constitutional law evolves over time with the society, so everything we have would be outdated and have to be redone constantly for her to be able to rule accordingly.
ALSO UGH with Chuck Grassley already. What people have to understand here is that just requiring insurers to cover preexisting conditions is completely USELESS without the Obamacare subsidies that require Obamacare for them to exist. The very subsidies that the GOP oppose more than any other part of the plan. Without the ACA subsidies, those with preexisting conditions can still get insurance, they just make it so the insurance is so expensive, there is no way to afford it. My insurance, for example, will be around $2,500- $3000+ a month, or even worse, as without Cobra at the time, it would have been much higher This would be my out of pocket expenses BEFORE copays and deductibles regardless of income or if I become unemployed or anything else. If I cannot afford that, then I would simply not have access to healthcare anymore and I would die. That is how this works with trumps " executive mandate" or anything else the GOP has proposed thus far. For all those who cannot afford that they can either have charity care, which is very limited and would not provide most of what you need to stay alive or state " high risk pools" which is like the lottery and that too, does not cover regular daily care, or access to your primary care doctor either. They get to pick and choose who lives and who dies under the high risk pools, and it really sucks to be there.
She doesn't even want to hear about all the people she will be taking away medical care from in the middle of a pandemic either, as that does not even factor into her decision making at all. Disgusting tbh.
Her interpretation of the constitution is the most ignorant and narrow that there is, in that she thinks that the constitutional law ONLY applies as it does at the time it was written, thus we would have to write a new constitution every few years under her beliefs for it to be able to keep up with everything that has come since. She doe not feel that the constitutional law evolves over time with the society, so everything we have would be outdated and have to be redone constantly for her to be able to rule accordingly.
ALSO UGH with Chuck Grassley already. What people have to understand here is that just requiring insurers to cover preexisting conditions is completely USELESS without the Obamacare subsidies that require Obamacare for them to exist. The very subsidies that the GOP oppose more than any other part of the plan. Without the ACA subsidies, those with preexisting conditions can still get insurance, they just make it so the insurance is so expensive, there is no way to afford it. My insurance, for example, will be around $2,500- $3000+ a month, or even worse, as without Cobra at the time, it would have been much higher This would be my out of pocket expenses BEFORE copays and deductibles regardless of income or if I become unemployed or anything else. If I cannot afford that, then I would simply not have access to healthcare anymore and I would die. That is how this works with trumps " executive mandate" or anything else the GOP has proposed thus far. For all those who cannot afford that they can either have charity care, which is very limited and would not provide most of what you need to stay alive or state " high risk pools" which is like the lottery and that too, does not cover regular daily care, or access to your primary care doctor either. They get to pick and choose who lives and who dies under the high risk pools, and it really sucks to be there.
She doesn't even want to hear about all the people she will be taking away medical care from in the middle of a pandemic either, as that does not even factor into her decision making at all. Disgusting tbh.
Last edited: