Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Blur4stuff]

The only reason any republicans voted for the weak bill is because they didn't want to risk something better getting passed. They hoped only that would pass and then that would be the end of everything. They could then claim they voted to help the country even though it's nowhere near enough while also claiming they stopped Biden's agenda because there's so much more that needs to be done.

If you care about regular people in the US then you should be thanking the squad in the house for actually giving a shit.

[Daelak]

Oh yeah, but when something close to half the country doesn’t agree with the assessment, don’t expect to ram through the legislation you want. There’s only so much cajoling that works after you call moderate Dems corporate sellouts and Republicans fascists, racists, and sexists.

Don’t whine about lack of compromise, that’s ludicrous with the current stances. Just try to win outright majorities next election cycle, and primary congressmen/senators that you think can be replaced with more ideologically aligned representatives. And it might be Sinema, AZ sometimes swings that way, but it definitely isn’t Manchin. West Virginia isn’t where you pick up a vote for a 3.5 tril bill.

It isn't close to half. The total amount of republican voters who voted for the republican senators in Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming is less than the mayoral vote in LA.

You project this equivalence of scope and scale to rationalize the regressive and incompetent political planks of the modern conservative movement. You, and people that espouse similar views are the reason for dysfunction and impasse. Your ideological forebears have fought tooth and nail against human rights and expansion of enfranchisement of your fellow citizens, even since before the founding of the US.

[Draco-Onis]

The point is the Democratic side of the aisle hurdle is the Senate and that's where they found the deal with Republicans. The math is sound: You don't get 69 votes in the Senate unless Senate Republicans are on board. The House is a different matter, and as stated, Democratic House members could've had this through long ago.

I hear Manchin-Sinema Manchin-Sinema Manchin-Sinema all day, but it turns out the Squad owns the House and that matters.

You are complaining that the smaller bill is not passing the house, I am pointing out that it's not passing the house because republicans aren't voting for it so Pelosi needs every democrat. The squad would have no power if republicans supported it in the house something you are keen on ignoring.

[tehdang]

You are complaining that the smaller bill is not passing the house, I am pointing out that it's not passing the house because republicans aren't voting for it so Pelosi needs every democrat. The squad would have no power if republicans supported it in the house something you are keen on ignoring.

Complaining? I’m revealing what that means for other people obsessed about Manchin and Sinema. They actually aren’t a problem for clear thinkers on what a 50-50 Senate means. I don’t mind if both fail due to political ineptitude and a disunited caucus in the House. Republicans are under no obligation to rescue a bill that’s being used as leverage to pass another bill through reconciliation.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't close to half. The total amount of republican voters who voted for the republican senators in Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming is less than the mayoral vote in LA.

You project this equivalence of scope and scale to rationalize the regressive and incompetent political planks of the modern conservative movement. You, and people that espouse similar views are the reason for dysfunction and impasse. Your ideological forebears have fought tooth and nail against human rights and expansion of enfranchisement of your fellow citizens, even since before the founding of the US.

If we’re the United States of dense metros and the coasts, then it isn’t half the country. If we’re the United States, then my apologies, but not enough states are behind this project. Half the country as half the states that make up this country.

You say “disfunction and impasse,” but it sounds a lot like “when I don’t get what I want because voters reject it, that’s a problem of the system and not my message.”

Then the ludicrous comparison to human rights speaks to your inability to stay on subject. Why care about the needs of small states to not be bypassed and forgotten in the national legislature, when that means urban progressives can’t force the rest of the country to conform to their moral dictums? File this under why passionate progressives are really arguing for a national divorce where cities like LA can be one-stop shops for the needs of many states.

[Draco-Onis]

Complaining? I’m revealing what that means for other people obsessed about Manchin and Sinema. They actually aren’t a problem for clear thinkers on what a 50-50 Senate means. I don’t mind if both fail due to political ineptitude and a disunited caucus in the House. Republicans are under no obligation to rescue a bill that’s being used as leverage to pass another bill through reconciliation.

That makes zero sense why wouldn't they vote for a bill their party support and take away leverage from progressives at the same time? Republicans are the reason for the leverage.

[Lenonis]

I do enjoy hearing about how Republicans being bad faith obstructionists is the democrats fault.

[unfilteredJW]

“LA can become a one stop shop for the needs of many states”

Who the fuck do you think is already carrying the leech red states @tehdang?

[Endus]

If we’re the United States of dense metros and the coasts, then it isn’t half the country.

You're right. But not for the reasons you think.

Those "dense metros" make up 80% of the US population. Far more than "half the country".

And don't tell me you were talking about statehood, here, because statehood is independent of the rural/urban divide.

If we’re the United States, then my apologies, but not enough states are behind this project. Half the country as half the states that make up this country.

Oh, so it's arbitrary political divisions that make the difference?

I repeat an earlier point; if California were to divide into 20 millionish separate States, one for each household or so, that's fine? They deserve the 40 million Senators outweighing the remaining 98 for all the other States? Or is that ridiculous?

Because once you admit it's ridiculous, you've admitted that statehood shouldn't be an arbitrary distinction, and then we get to start asking questions like "why don't we combine a bunch of low-population States into a single State to make them more comparable to other States?" And no, "because they'd lose Senate representation" is not an argument, there; that's begging the question.

You say “disfunction and impasse,” but it sounds a lot like “when I don’t get what I want because voters reject it, that’s a problem of the system and not my message.”

If you're insisting on talking about statehood and Senate representation, then you're not talking about voters.

You're not even staying consistent in your own arguments.

Then the ludicrous comparison to human rights speaks to your inability to stay on subject. Why care about the needs of small states to not be bypassed and forgotten in the national legislature, when that means urban progressives can’t force the rest of the country to conform to their moral dictums? File this under why passionate progressives are really arguing for a national divorce where cities like LA can be one-stop shops for the needs of many states.

Denying human rights to support arbitrary political divides and their choice to infringe on human rights. That's your argument, here.

[downnola]

If we’re the United States of dense metros and the coasts, then it isn’t half the country. If we’re the United States, then my apologies, but not enough states are behind this project. Half the country as half the states that make up this country.

You say “disfunction and impasse,” but it sounds a lot like “when I don’t get what I want because voters reject it, that’s a problem of the system and not my message.”

Then the ludicrous comparison to human rights speaks to your inability to stay on subject. Why care about the needs of small states to not be bypassed and forgotten in the national legislature, when that means urban progressives can’t force the rest of the country to conform to their moral dictums? File this under why passionate progressives are really arguing for a national divorce where cities like LA can be one-stop shops for the needs of many states.

It's not that we don't understand the function of the states. The problem is that you insist on using misleading and disingenuous arguments with terms like "voters" and "half the country" when you know full well conservatives don't make up anywhere close to "half the country," and United States voting turn out looks like this:

not the imaginary 50/50 representation you're trying to make it out to be.

It would be one thing if you just defended federalism and left it at that, but that isn't what you're doing at all. You're trying to act like this is all just representative democracy in action when it's far from it. And you know it's far from it and even try to justify it while shifting goal posts all over the place so you can insert as many sneers at Democrats/progressives/leftists as you can. Someone as shifty and dishonest in argument as you are should really keep their trap shut about others not staying on subject.

[tehdang]

“LA can become a one stop shop for the needs of many states”

Who the fuck do you think is already carrying the leech red states @tehdang?

Why do you think I included the peaceful national divorce in my post? It's clear that a vocal group of internet leftists consider the relationship to be a leeching relationship and the solution is to strip them of their power in the Senate.

It's not that we don't understand the function of the states. The problem is that you insist on using misleading and disingenuous arguments with terms like "voters" and "half the country" when you know full well conservatives don't make up anywhere close to "half the country," and United States voting turn out looks like this:

not the imaginary 50/50 representation you're trying to make it out to be.

It would be one thing if you just defended federalism and left it at that, but that isn't what you're doing at all. You're trying to act like this is all just representative democracy in action when it's far from it. And you know it's far from it and even try to justify it while shifting goal posts all over the place so you can insert as many sneers at Democrats/progressives/leftists as you can. Someone as shifty and dishonest in argument as you are should really keep their trap shut about others not staying on subject.

I don't know how I could've been more explicit about the need to balance small states against the larger ones bossing them around nationally, and the large states needing a somewhat greater ability to direct their greater revenue through taxation. That's a federalism argument at its core. The inability for big, progressive centers to reconcile their priorities with the rest of the country is reason enough to divest more power from the national government in general and return more of it to the states.

But thanks for spicing up the thread with maps.

That makes zero sense why wouldn't they vote for a bill their party support and take away leverage from progressives at the same time? Republicans are the reason for the leverage.

Pelosi isn't even holding the vote, may I remind you.

Same response as earlier: the fight is intra-Democrat and the tone is both or nothing, so no way do House Republicans have reason to sign onto such political warfare. It's not like Pelosi was asking them for input in the negotiation of a compromise.

- - - Updated - - -

I do enjoy hearing about how Republicans being bad faith obstructionists is the democrats fault.

The trouble with winning the House, Senate, and Presidency, despite the narrow margins, is the blame on Republicans should raise some eye rolls. They had a 69-30 vote in the Senate and Pelosi's team in the House can't make it through. It's not Republican's fault that Democrats are in disarray and blaming Manchin and Sinema, or the squad, depending on which day it is.

Pelosi: Promises a vote last Thursday, as negotiated with Senate and House Democratic moderates, calls it off
Lenonis: Let me tell you how actions of the Democratic House Speaker, Democratic Senate Majority Leader, and Democratic President come down to Republican bad faith obstructionists

(Cue Politico's "The fact that the president came to the Hill and whipped against his own bill is the strangest thing I’ve ever seen")

[s_bushido]

I don't know how I could've been more explicit about the need to balance small states against the larger ones bossing them around nationally, and the large states needing a somewhat greater ability to direct their greater revenue through taxation. That's a federalism argument at its core. The inability for big, progressive centers to reconcile their priorities with the rest of the country is reason enough to divest more power from the national government in general and return more of it to the states.

I wonder if the people who think "states" are more important than citizens can name a single issue where the "priorities" of more densely populated areas conflict with those of suburban or rural populations.

[Edge-]

I wonder if the people who think "states" are more important than citizens can name a single issue where the "priorities" of more densely populated areas conflict with those of suburban or rural populations.

Farm subsidies spring to mind instantly. Though there are tons of related topics that impact both, like water rights and access to water. Then again, I think there's a lot of pushback against the expansive farm subsidies just as there is a lot of pushback against huge corporate welfare that benefits more urban areas.

I think the importance of the "state" has declined considerably since the founding and the original principles don't really apply anymore. The Constitution was designed to be a malleable, living document that evolves with the times and the needs of the day. That it's viewed as sacrosanct and shouldn't ever be touched, despite the fact that it's been Amended 27 times, most recently in the 90's.

With inter-state and global commerce impacting them all, and the increased connectivity of like...well...everyone/thing, the older notion of states as largely isolated is completely garbage. This is a future the founders never could have conceived of, and consequently could have never tried to pre-empt in their original writings and thinking. Going across states can take a few hours or less, and cross-country can be done in under 6 hours. It's not a multi-day trek just to get from your farmstead to the state capitol, and perish the thought of trying to make it from Massachusetts to Georgia, which would have been weeks if not more, rather than hours.

[Milchshake]

Heh page navigation is out of synch. Did someone connal their account?
Everytime that happens, a SJW gets their wings.

The Senate voted to confirm Lauren King to serve as a federal judge in Seattle, making her only the sixth Native American to ever sit on the bench in the federal judiciary's 232-year history.



16 federal judges now confirmed to lifetime appointments by Biden/Schumer. We've now passed Nixon, who had 15 to this point in his first term.

That makes us the fastest since Kennedy in getting judicial vacancies filled.

[s_bushido]

Farm subsidies spring to mind instantly.

I mean...Texas has the most farms in the country, has some of the largest cities in the country, and also leans heavily Republican. Seems like that's pretty clear case-in-point that all this /wanking over states is meaningless, since regardless of the population and political makeup, these things would have to be addressed anyway.

[Edge-]

I mean...Texas has the most farms in the country, has some of the largest cities in the country, and also leans heavily Republican. Seems like that's pretty clear case-in-point that all this /wanking over states is meaningless, since regardless of the population and political makeup, these things would have to be addressed anyway.

I agree. The focus on the importance of states is silly at this point, as the significance of states has decreased over the past few hundred years. That's not to say they should be done away with or anything, they still serve many valuable purposes and are the best administrators when it comes to issues specific to their states, but their importance on the national scene has decreased considerably, and they're nigh inconsequential on the international scene.

[Draco-Onis]

Pelosi isn't even holding the vote, may I remind you.

Same response as earlier: the fight is intra-Democrat and the tone is both or nothing, so no way do House Republicans have reason to sign onto such political warfare. It's not like Pelosi was asking them for input in the negotiation of a compromise

err she tried vote counting and all the republicans saying no so which is it? Again it's not that difficult you have stated McConnell supports the bill. You do know that house republicans are from the same party right? So I ask you why did house republicans all say no even before the bill came to the house? They are the only reason the squad has any power, Pelosi will happily screw progressives but she has no choice.

House republicans are elected officials you seem to be cheering for them to sit on their asses doing nothing for the country.

[Huehuecoyotl]

*snip*

Maybe we could come up with some kind of weighting system, to reduce the voting power of these low population states? What if we made it so their senators only counted as, let's say, 3/5 of a senator?

That might help balance things up a bit.

[Lenonis]

The trouble with winning the House, Senate, and Presidency, despite the narrow margins, is the blame on Republicans should raise some eye rolls.

Your posts generate eye rolls, sure.

They had a 69-30 vote in the Senate and Pelosi's team in the House can't make it through.

Because of house republicans.

It's not Republican's fault that Democrats are in disarray and blaming Manchin and Sinema, or the squad, depending on which day it is.

It's also not Democrats fault Republicans are obstructionist bad faith assholes who only care about optics and not policy. Should I bring up the ACA bill which was based on a republican idea, included republican authored segments, and at the 11th hour they all voted against it so they could spend the next 10 years attacking it.

It's always the same with you people. The GOP can do no wrong and anything they do that's even slightly out of step is somehow the dem's fault.

[tehdang]

Your posts generate eye rolls, sure.

Because of house republicans.

Same as before. The Democrats knew they could pass it without a single House Republican vote, so didn't invite House Republicans in to discuss compromises. Turns out, Pelosi oversold her coalition strength and had to go back to the drawing board.

But Republicans only exist to clean up Democrat messes, apparently.

It's also not Democrats fault Republicans are obstructionist bad faith assholes who only care about optics and not policy. Should I bring up the ACA bill which was based on a republican idea, included republican authored segments, and at the 11th hour they all voted against it so they could spend the next 10 years attacking it.

So Republican, it was written behind closed doors without a Republican present. Listen, next time I use your ideas, I'm not going to invite you, but tell you how much you better like it.

It's always the same with you people. The GOP can do no wrong and anything they do that's even slightly out of step is somehow the dem's fault.

They've done tons of wrong stuff. They're the stupid party. You're just citing the obvious things that can't be blamed on Republicans, but doing it anyways. March on!

err she tried vote counting and all the republicans saying no so which is it? Again it's not that difficult you have stated McConnell supports the bill. You do know that house republicans are from the same party right? So I ask you why did house republicans all say no even before the bill came to the house? They are the only reason the squad has any power, Pelosi will happily screw progressives but she has no choice.

House republicans are elected officials you seem to be cheering for them to sit on their asses doing nothing for the country.

She's right to doubt it, considering how much her party is considering it linked to the massive spending bill. But she isn't bringing it to the floor for an actual vote, so don't go around saying that's Republicans fault. They never had to put their money where their mouth was (Hint: If this is all shit the country loves, and it's only the representatives that vote against their interests, then here's an easy way to get their votes recorded)

McConnell negotiated in good faith, and progressives yanked the carpet from beneath Senate Republicans by going back for a monster bill after compromising down on the infrastructure bill. In case you forgot, Biden celebrated the bipartisan deal before reneging and declaring that he wanted both bills to pass simultaneously. So your problem here is the timeline.

And House Republicans should reject any attempts to pass both bills simultaneously, so good on them for it. No, seriously, they suck ass so much of the time that it's important to make distinctions when it's proper. And it's so easy for them to sit pretty here, since the other side is writing their own plans and blaming everyone but themselves when their coalition can't muster the votes to pass it through.

[EyelessCrow]

Your posts generate eye rolls, sure.

Because of house republicans.

It's also not Democrats fault Republicans are obstructionist bad faith assholes who only care about optics and not policy. Should I bring up the ACA bill which was based on a republican idea, included republican authored segments, and at the 11th hour they all voted against it so they could spend the next 10 years attacking it.

It's always the same with you people. The GOP can do no wrong and anything they do that's even slightly out of step is somehow the dem's fault.

Pot, Kettle