Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Themius]

Republicans fired the parliamentarian in 2001 to pass a tax cut for the rich...

It is a poor argument all around as the history of senate and scotus has been one of roadblocks and ignoring the will of the masses. So using the excuse "but when they wanted to do more nothing they totally went ahead with doing more nothing!" well... that's always been their fucking problem so that's not something to celebrate.

[Breccia]

Republicans fired the parliamentarian in 2001 to pass a tax cut for the rich...

Well that's not quite what I was going for, I was referring to the VP being the one who can replace the parliamentarian's decision with their own. Again, as evidence that their opinion carries actual weight, and cannot be handwaved with "pfft, opinion, pass the bill anyhow".

Firing someone and replacing them with someone who will agree with you is the same in spirit, so we agree there. Trump did that shit all the time.

[Ivanstone]

"Would a virtuous person overrule the will of the masses in order to follow the non-legally binding opinion of a singe unelected bureaucrat?"

The will of the people in 2012 determined that Barack Obama was to be President and that Henry Reid was to be the Senate Majority Leader therefore the will of the people wanted this particular bureaucrat for this job. She didn't spring into being from nothingness.

- - - Updated - - -

But it isn't about that at all these are all procedures you know like precedence which Republicans have already set by breaking them.

Look this is real life not a fairy tale you aren't going to win by being nice. Republicans have been running laps around democrats because of this nice guys bullshit.

Stacy Abrams and her supporters took ten years to flip Georgia blue by doing hard work. Would you have preferred that she skip all that and cheat her way to victory?

[Draco-Onis]

Well that's not quite what I was going for, I was referring to the VP being the one who can replace the parliamentarian's decision with their own. Again, as evidence that their opinion carries actual weight, and cannot be handwaved with "pfft, opinion, pass the bill anyhow".

Firing someone and replacing them with someone who will agree with you is the same in spirit, so we agree there. Trump did that shit all the time.

It was good enough for Republicans it's good enough for democrats. They set the new rules of the game democrats need to up their game.

But this is moot as I said previously Biden doesn't have it in him.

- - - Updated - - -

Stacy Abrams and her supporters took ten years to flip Georgia blue by doing hard work. Would you have preferred that she skip all that and cheat her way to victory?

Yes, Republicans haven't won the popular vote in the house or the presidency for a decade or more. The ends justify the means.

[Themius]

The will of the people in 2012 determined that Barack Obama was to be President and that Henry Reid was to be the Senate Majority Leader therefore the will of the people wanted this particular bureaucrat for this job. She didn't spring into being from nothingness.

This is a poor argument.

Since we are talking about the will of people being practised through the people voted into the house and senate a single appointee is not the will of the people, but the senators are... the people a president appoints isn't the will of the people in practice, it is the will of the president. When we vote for the president whatever they do doesn't suddenly become the will of the people.

Let's go back to the social contract.

Voters have a right to expect that their elected officials represent their wants and needs. as polling suggests both sides overwhelming want higher wages anything that goes against that, goes against the will of the people.

[Edge-]

Firing someone and replacing them with someone who will agree with you is the same in spirit, so we agree there. Trump did that shit all the time.

He did. And without Republicans being willing participants in an honest attempt at governance, I see no problem using their tactics against them when they decide to ratfuck normal governance.

I'm sure if you ask folks, "Do you care if we ignore the Senate parliamentarian to raise the minimum wage and deliver pandemic relief?" the overwhelming response would be, "Who? Don't we have a Congress, not a parliament?"

[Breccia]

It was good enough for Republicans it's good enough for democrats.

I know what you're going for, and I respectfully disagre in this case at least. There are other ways to get some results without either overruling or firing the parliamentarian.

But I won't lose any sleep if that happens.

[Themius]

He did. And without Republicans being willing participants in an honest attempt at governance, I see no problem using their tactics against them when they decide to ratfuck normal governance.

I'm sure if you ask folks, "Do you care if we ignore the Senate parliamentarian to raise the minimum wage and deliver pandemic relief?" the overwhelming response would be, "Who? Don't we have a Congress, not a parliament?"

And this is why it is silly to try and say it is unethical like Ivan did...

I'm actually super confused about what kind of ethical analysis they did to arrive at overruling the will of the populace that affects 32 million people, on the advisory opinion of a single unelected bureaucrat is ethical... as if impinging on the rights of voters is... ethical...

[Draco-Onis]

He did. And without Republicans being willing participants in an honest attempt at governance, I see no problem using their tactics against them when they decide to ratfuck normal governance.

I'm sure if you ask folks, "Do you care if we ignore the Senate parliamentarian to raise the minimum wage and deliver pandemic relief?" the overwhelming response would be, "Who? Don't we have a Congress, not a parliament?"

Exactly not sure why people want to play nice, this isn't over because Trump lost. Democrats need to deliver or we are facing a very dark future with the GOP back in power.

[Themius]

I know what you're going for, and I respectfully disagre in this case at least. There are other ways to get some results without either overruling or firing the parliamentarian.

But I won't lose any sleep if that happens.

What other ways? You see this getting 60 votes bub?

[Breccia]

I see no problem using their tactics against them when they decide to ratfuck normal governance.

Like I just said, I do have a problem with it...but not a huge one, in this case. Basically, if someone shot a convicted rapist who escaped from jail, I'd say "well that's techincally murder buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut..."

[Shadowferal]

It was good enough for Republicans it's good enough for democrats. .

So..you want to justify "both sides" argument.

[Themius]

Exactly not sure why people want to play nice, this isn't over because Trump lost. Democrats need to deliver or we are facing a very dark future with the GOP back in power.

This isn't even playing nice... the majority of both sides want it. It's just straight ignoring the will of their constituents. This is quite literally playing evil games with the lives of people.

Like... at current poverty wages we know that people die yearly by the many thousands... on issues directly died to poverty. In what world is it ethical to block this because an advisor says "but the process i don't agree that this thing that affects the budget affects the budget although all points against it also affect the budget and all points for it also affect the budget

It's all bullshit.

[Breccia]

What other ways?

Well for one, the states could deal with it directly. They have for a while now.

Or, as I posted before...not sure how you missed it...the Democrats could simply tax any business which doesn't pay $12/hour.

Or, as I also also psoted before, OH GOD INCEPTION, they could send up the bill on its own merits and go nuclear.

[Draco-Onis]

So..you want to justify "both sides" argument.

I will tell you a secret that isn't going away no matter what you do. No one will care if you deliver results.

[Ivanstone]

This is a poor argument.

Since we are talking about the will of people being practised through the people voted into the house and senate a single appointee is not the will of the people, but the senators are... the people a president appoints isn't the will of the people in practice, it is the will of the president. When we vote for the president whatever they do doesn't suddenly become the will of the people.

Let's go back to the social contract.

Voters have a right to expect that their elected officials represent their wants and needs. as polling suggests both sides overwhelming want higher wages anything that goes against that, goes against the will of the people.

Anthony Fauci, by your argument, is a single unelected bureaucrat that wasn't placed by the will of the people and has opinions that should be ignored.

Trump and the GOP partially ignored his opinions but if he got fired and replaced by a sycophant, the US would probably be worse off than they were before.

Also if the overwhelming majority of people wanted higher wages, there wouldn't be this 51-50 split. Here's a reminder: There are millions of Americans who want a higher wage but they'll accept poor pay as long as blacks and latinos are worse paid.

[Themius]

Well for one, the states could deal with it directly. They have for a while now.

Or, as I posted before...not sure how you missed it...the Democrats could simply tax any business which doesn't pay $12/hour.

Or, as I also also psoted before, OH GOD INCEPTION, they could send up the bill on its own merits and go nuclear.

Hey... remember how gay marriage was illegal in most of America and states kept passing more and more restrictive laws on the issue and outright bans...

Hey remember Jim Crow?

What a fucking terrible idea mate.... "just leave it to the states! we have for a while now." how has that worked out?

I responded to the foolishness of taxing businesses that don't pay higher wages... taxing companies that already dodge taxes is a fucking dumb idea

oh and your last point is again foolery. Do you see it getting 60 votes? you are aware the democrats gave up on the filibuster...

[Edge-]

Like I just said, I do have a problem with it...but not a huge one, in this case. Basically, if someone shot a convicted rapist who escaped from jail, I'd say "well that's techincally murder buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut..."

Not really. It's just taking a dirty trick others have used to ratfuck governance and deliver an unpopular agenda and using it to deliver some actual good in the face of said others doing everything they can to ratfuck normal governance.

Republicans should be ignored. Completely. Any tool Democrats have to completely go around them whenever possible should be used. Until they come to the table with an attempt at good faith governance, which isn't to say "GIVE DEMS WHAT THEY WANT!" but to say they should be open to negotiation and compromise and coming to the table at all, they don't deserve any role to play.

[Themius]

Anthony Fauci, by your argument, is a single unelected bureaucrat that wasn't placed by the will of the people and has opinions that should be ignored.

Trump and the GOP partially ignored his opinions but if he got fired and replaced by a sycophant, the US would probably be worse off than they were before.

Anthony Fauci is a medical professional in infectious diseases.

pose the question "Would a virtuous person during a pandemic follow the advice of an infectious disease expert to save lives?"

And you'll see why your argument is poor.

The parliamentarian is a glorified lawyer, not an economist.

[Breccia]

Not really. It's just taking a dirty trick others have used to ratfuck governance and deliver an unpopular agenda and using it to deliver some actual good in the face of said others doing everything they can to ratfuck normal governance.

This, of course, is the entire issue in the first place.

Are we willing to shove aside rules we don't like for results we do like? And where do we draw the line?

I don't think there's a single answer everyone will accept here.