Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Themius]

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.

The rule says it can be overruled... the specific Byrd rule also says it doesn't stop the provision from being included.

Consider that reconciliation may be the only way for democrats to get anything at all done... and then tell me why you want the minimum wage to utterly fail. To uphold some weird addiction to "norms" no one follows or cares about?

I mean they care... when it comes time to be inactive.

[Breccia]

remember how gay marriage was illegal

Hey remember Jim Crow?

And slavery, etc etc.

Yes, those ideas had popular support at the time. That's why the laws were possible.

Yes, I disagree with the above.

Yes, times changed and the laws were changed. They were changed by increasingly popular movement within the voting community and by proxy their elected officials.

That's how laws work.

[Ivanstone]

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.

He's also an unelected bureaucrat by you standards. By my standard he was placed by the will of the people. Repeatedly.

Elizabeth MacDonough is not a glorified lawyer. She is an actual lawyer and is considered to be exceptional within her field.

Here's a counter question for you:
"Would a virtuous person during a health crisis follow the advice of a skilled lawyer to save healthcare funding laws if it saved lives?"

[Edge-]

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.

Probably not. But I've stated my position, which is that Democrats should use the tools that the Republican party provided them to do good and get anything done instead of pathetically continue trying this "unity" and "bipartisan" bullshit after it's been little more than a massive failure in their recent decades of pearl clutching about it. I'm tired of them coming out with the "compromise" proposal out of the gate and then negotiating that down because they think "MAYBE IF WE COMPROMISE THEY WILL AGREE WITH US AND SAY THAT'S FAIR!", instead of coming out with their actual desires and negotiating those down.

Basically, I'm tired of a minority party that has to ratfuck rules at the state level to win elections running a fuckin train on Democrats time and time again.

The Senate parliamentarian may perform an important role, but their word is not final by any stretch of the measure and I don't see any problems using the precedent set by Republicans in this regard.

[Themius]

And slavery, etc etc.

Yes, those ideas had popular support at the time. That's why the laws were possible.

Yes, I disagree with the above.

Yes, times changed and the laws were changed. They were changed by increasingly popular movement within the voting community and by proxy their elected officials.

That's how laws work.

How did gay marriage work when left to states, how did jim crow work?

Did states themselves solve all those issues? You know they didn't hence why it is a silly argument to leave it to states.

Now you say they had popular support SO DOES THE MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE we both already know that the will of the people really means little when it comes to a lot of policies... remember the Princeton study?

you say times have changed nad laws have changed.

Hey Breccia...what happened to the voting rights act? Tell me what is happening in the south right this very moment?

[Breccia]

The rule says it can be overruled

It sure sounds like a lot of uproar over a non-binding opinion. Which is why I'm just assuming you're wrong until we see proof otherwise.

[Themius]

He's also an unelected bureaucrat by you standards. By my standard he was placed by the will of the people. Repeatedly.

Elizabeth MacDonough is not a glorified lawyer. She is an actual lawyer and is considered to be exceptional within her field.

Here's a counter question for you:
"Would a virtuous person during a health crisis follow the advice of an a skilled lawyer to save healthcare funding laws if it saved lives?"

she is not an econmist.

and no a virtuous person would not listen to the opinion of a skill lawyer on funding issues A SKILL ECONOMIST should be sought out. The fuck type of argument are you making right now?

[Ivanstone]

she is not an econmist.

and no a virtuous person would not listen to the opinion of a skill lawyer on funding issues A SKILL ECONOMIST should be sought out. The fuck type of argument are you making right now?

The GOP tried to gut Obamacare during reconciliation and failed because of McDonaugh's "opinions".

[Themius]

It sure sounds like a lot of uproar over a non-binding opinion. Which is why I'm just assuming you're wrong until we see proof otherwise.

The fuck... it comes down to the seat of the fucking senate whether to agree or disagree.

I mean you fucking went to say the last time an overrule happened was in the 70s so you must fucking know it can be done. why are you playing games?

The role of the parliamentary staff is advisory, and the Presiding Officer may overrule the advice of the parliamentarian. In practice this is rare, and the most recent example of a Vice President (as President of the Senate) overruling the parliamentarian was Nelson Rockefeller in 1975.[3]

You must have googled this already to know the year or the case of the overruling that last took place so why are you playing games??

[Draco-Onis]

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.

There's an easy way to figure it out. Do you think the average American cares about congressional procedure or results? What are they going to vote for making their lives better or following decorum?

[Themius]

The GOP tried to gut Obamacare during reconciliation and failed because of McDonaugh's "opinions".

it's still a poor question because what is saved by ensuring poverty wages? Tell me can a person do good and bad things? I mean for instance Biden saying he supports unions... good...

Biden illegally bombing Iranians in syria which is straight up and down illegal... bad....

the question you're looking for

"would a virtuous person use legal reasons when confronted with another legal argument, to make an advisory opinion"

In that case we already know what the will of the people is... that was to have aca and expand it even...

[Breccia]

How did gay marriage work when left to states, how did jim crow work?

The same way every other law worked state/federal. Those states with less, erm, "conservative" thinking applied their own rules until the federal government changed their mind.

Again, I'm not defending these policies, only pointing out that they were legal because they had popular support. Until they didn't. Then they weren't legal anymore.

You don't have to like either of those at-the-time legal situations. I'm glad you don't have to live in them. Hopefully the people with Republican Senators/Representatives who feel the minimum wage should increase will make their opinion known. If they feel other issues outweigh that, such as pro-life, they won't. That's why the minimum wage map and the who-voted-for-Biden map look so similar.

It's not ideal. It's not even "okay" from a moral standpoint. But I'm not going to charge the Capitol with torches and pitchforks, because that's not how democracy works. I'll just continue to chain-vote Democrat and attend rallies on the topic.

- - - Updated - - -

Biden illegally bombing Iranians in syria which is straight up and down illegal

Well yeah...that's how tautologies work.

[Ivanstone]

There's an easy way to figure it out. Do you think the average American cares about congressional procedure or results? What are they going to vote for making their lives better or following decorum?

Half are going to vote for making their lives better.

The other half are going to vote for making the lives of some people worse even at their own expense.

Both halves will wield the cudgel of decorum against the other.

[Edge-]

The GOP tried to gut Obamacare during reconciliation and failed because of McDonaugh's "opinions".

Sorta kinda? I'm trying to find out if they were even removed, but McDonaugh only "rejected" a few amendments from the bill. It failed a procedural vote in the Senate anyways so it's hardly as if it failed because of her. It failed because it was a joke that not even Republicans could agree to, not even their "skinny repeal".

[Themius]

The same way every other law worked state/federal. Those states with less, erm, "conservative" thinking applied their own rules until the federal government changed their mind.

Again, I'm not defending these policies, only pointing out that they were legal because they had popular support. Until they didn't. Then they weren't legal anymore.

You don't have to like either of those at-the-time legal situations. I'm glad you don't have to live in them. Hopefully the people with Republican Senators/Representatives who feel the minimum wage should increase will make their opinion known. If they feel other issues outweigh that, such as pro-life, they won't. That's why the minimum wage map and the who-voted-for-Biden map look so similar.

It's not ideal. It's not even "okay" from a moral standpoint. But I'm not going to charge the Capitol with torches and pitchforks, because that's not how democracy works. I'll just continue to chain-vote Democrat and attend rallies on the topic.

- - - Updated - - -



Well yeah...that's how tautologies work.

How about instead of fighting for more status quo blah blah you vote democrats still... but also freely don't support stupid shit we all know is stupid?

I voted up and down democrat, doesn't stop me from being critical of warmongering bullshit Biden is doing just because I voted Biden/Harris.

[DarkTZeratul]

she is not an econmist.

and no a virtuous person would not listen to the opinion of a skill lawyer on funding issues A SKILL ECONOMIST should be sought out. The fuck type of argument are you making right now?

That her position has literally nothing to do with making economic rulings. Her position is about making procedural rulings, and being a lawyer lends itself to interpretations of the rules.

[Draco-Onis]

Half are going to vote for making their lives better.

The other half are going to vote for making the lives of some people worse even at their own expense.

Both halves will wield the cudgel of decorum against the other.

History says otherwise democrats boil the frog don't rock the boat approach is how we got Trump.

[Themius]

That her position has literally nothing to do with making economic rulings. Her position is about making procedural rulings, and being a lawyer lends itself to interpretations of the rules.

The rule itself notes that it doesn't actually stop the provision from being included. Her advice is to not include it.

Advice easily overruled by Kamala which then means it would need 60 votes in order to be taken out.

[Edge-]

Biden illegally bombing Iranians in syria which is straight up and down illegal... bad....

Is it illegal?

What does it have to do with talking about the minimum wage increase?

[Draco-Onis]

Is it illegal?

What does it have to do with talking about the minimum wage increase?

Not illegal but not following procedures, I think he is saying Biden throws away these things when it suits him.