You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US Politics Thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
There is hope…
Intelligent, well-spoken, military veteran, husband, father, Cabinet Secretary, and the person I voted for in the Illinois Dem Primary!
Imagine a Presidential Debate between Buttigieg and DeSantis?!
Intelligent, well-spoken, military veteran, husband, father, Cabinet Secretary, and the person I voted for in the Illinois Dem Primary!
Imagine a Presidential Debate between Buttigieg and DeSantis?!
Last edited:
Oh yeah. Don't listen to me.
Listen to your fellow Americans only yesterday...
Assumes facts not in evidence.
She assumes things that COULD have been done, but we’re NOT done, for reasons she makes up, then uses religious zealotry as the reason for Trumps election and the latest Roe decision to bolster her “Republicans do what they say they’ll do, Dems don’t!”
it is nonsense.
As anyone with any knowledge of votes understands, adding or removing a single word/sentence from a bill can change the votes.
While I certainly admire her for attempting to be inside working fit change, as opposed to on the outside pointing at her political bugbears, it doesn’t mean she has all, or even any, of the answers…especially when it comes to the political realities of life.
Pointing is easy.
Last edited:
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
There is hope…
Intelligent, well-spoken, military veteran, husband, father, Cabinet Secretary, and the person I voted for in the Illinois Dem Primary!
Imagine a Presidential Debate between Buttigieg and DeSantis?!
Buttigieg is unbelievably articulate, knowledgeable and honest.
He would utterly destroy DeSantis in a debate.
Pedestrian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 2,540
The rantings of someone who is obviously banned from Twitter.Lol. This post is absurd
Nope they don't believe that.
Nope. No one believes that.
Yes. Some believe this. Especially when evidence sometimes show a flimsy correlation between some of those mandates and positive outcomes.
Mask mandates after vaccination... Anyone explain this please????
Popular vote is irrelevant to deciding the American Presidential election. Let me repeat that again: Popular vote is irrelevant to deciding the American Presidential elections!
There are legitimate reasons for this. And even if there weren't. It's not as if the rules got sprung on any candidates after the fact. Everyone knows the rules going in.
People who make this silly point ( Mostly bretherens from across the pond) have no idea how silly they sound. Let me help:
You sound like someone who complains that his team should be awarded victory because they create more chances than the opposition. Even if the opposition scored more goals.
That is how silly it sounds. The goal of football is to score the most goals. It's irrelevant who created the most chances.
Similarly,the goal of the American Presidential election is to win the most electoral seats. That's the goal! Not the most people votes.That would be the equivalent of having the most possession or most chances created. Irrelevant as far as winning is concerned.
Hope that helps clear things up for all Eternity.
Do you have something against Islam? You think a man or woman shouldn't be able to get on their knees and bow to face Mecca at Sunset? What do you have against Islamic call to prayer exactly?
Oh wait! It's Christianity that you were attempting to flex on. This is typical virtue signaling.
Yes. You've always had that right. And if you doubt that we can test it out now. I'm in serious need. Do you mind sending me 1000 pounds? Let me know where to send my a/c info. Or perhaps you have the right to refuse?
Government on the other hand are shitty at helping. And it by and large becomes an opportunity for corrupt Ill begotten gains. Have you not been reading about the PPP loans and all the scams that came with it?
Yes. Not unfettered. But within the already prescribed limits.
But the real issue here is about power.
Who gets to decide what speech is to the detriment of society? You? The newly formed Ministry of Disinformation in the Biden Orwellian nightmare? Me? Foggy. Dumb SWP?
Pray tell, was the Hunter Biden disinformation free of factual content? How about the lab leak theory? Both were basis for bans and suspension on Social media in the very near past. Today, they are deemed factual.
The reason why Free Speech is necessary, is because we often cannot pre determine which speech is true, right or for the betterment of humanity.
You have to think these things beyond slogans.
Yes, you should not have a right to abortion, just like you should not have a right to kill another person.
Yes, there are circumstances where that right will be yours. In self defense, you can kill another. To preserve your life, you may end that of another.
But that right should be constrained by circumstance. To suggest otherwise is barbaric and frankly, well... Toxic!
Uncle Wally One Ball
Well-Known Member
Matters not. He is gay and the loons there won't get past that. Backwards country with sensible edgesButtigieg is unbelievably articulate, knowledgeable and honest.
He would utterly destroy DeSantis in a debate.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Assumes facts not in evidence.
She assumes things that COULD have been done, but we’re NOT done, for reasons she makes up, then uses religious zealotry as the reason for Trumps election and the latest Roe decision to bolster her “Republicans do what they say they’ll do, Dems don’t!”
it is nonsense.
As anyone with any knowledge of votes understands, adding or removing a single word/sentence from a bill can change the votes.
While I certainly admire her for attempting to be inside working fit change, as opposed to on the outside pointing at her political bugbears, it doesn’t mean she has all, or even any, of the answers…especially when it comes to the political realities of life.
Pointing is easy.
Ball has been in the political game, at least, 10 years. She's worked for the MSM for years before she left. She knows her political arguments. What she says may be speculative, but they're not without reason or foundation to work off.
I summarised the issue at hand before she went into detail, of which you've not pulled apart.
I'll take her opinion on the Democratic party and their political goals over anyone else's on here. Funnily enough, her arguments links to the article I dropped about Pelosi not actioning on Rowe vs Wade (as I did two years ago) when they had the chance.
So, ya know...
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Oh and Buttigieg is anything, but honest.
If he was that 'brilliant', he'd have wiped the floor with Sanders in their debates a couple of years ago.
DeSantis is an arsehole, though.
If he was that 'brilliant', he'd have wiped the floor with Sanders in their debates a couple of years ago.
DeSantis is an arsehole, though.
You go with her. Good for you. They didn’t have numbers then and could only do it with a suspension/destruction of the filibuster now, IF they could get Dems to go along with it!Ball has been in the political game, at least, 10 years. She's worked for the MSM for years before she left. She knows her political arguments. What she says may be speculative, but they're not without reason or foundation to work off.
I summarised the issue at hand before she went into detail, of which you've not pulled apart.
I'll take her opinion on the Democratic party and their political goals over anyone else's on here. Funnily enough, her arguments links to the article I dropped about Pelosi not actioning on Rowe vs Wade (as I did two years ago) when they had the chance.
So, ya know...
Its a “put your name on this vote” moment, if Schumer does bring it to a floor vote. Im
Not sure Dems want the result, unless they have assurances from a few Rs!
FYI, it’s Roe! But, if Krystal says it’s “Rowe,” let’s go with that, shall we?!
Have a good weekend!
I wasn’t aware they had debated each other. When was that? I’ll go find the footage and watch where they disagreed and on what.If he was that 'brilliant', he'd have wiped the floor with Sanders in their debates a couple of years ago.
In case you missed it in 2016 or 2020, Bernie is a much loved, revered even, INDEPENDENT voice in the Senate who CAUCUSES with Dems. If you think he’s ever getting to the top, think again!
He does what he does well.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
You go with her. Good for you. They didn’t have numbers then and could only do it with a suspension/destruction of the filibuster now, IF they could get Dems to go along with it!
Its a “put your name on this vote” moment, if Schumer does bring it to a floor vote. Im
Not sure Dems want the result, unless they have assurances from a few Rs!
FYI, it’s Roe! But, if Krystal says it’s “Rowe,” let’s go with that, shall we?!
Have a good weekend!
A 'super majority' in the senate equalled "didn't have the numbers"? That's some mental gymnastics, right there!
As I have intimated and has Ball has intimated, the Dems have played brinkmanship with this case and had the chance to do something beforehand, but used it and other situations to 'get out the vote' and then doing nothing with those alluding promises (BBB/ Redlining/ Student Debt anyone?). You must see this, clear as day!
Rinse and repeat.
Strawmanning over 'Roe/ Rowe'?
A new low/ lowe!
Enjoy the weekend yourself.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
I wasn’t aware they had debated each other. When was that? I’ll go find the footage and watch where they disagreed and on what.
In case you missed it in 2016 or 2020, Bernie is a much loved, revered even, INDEPENDENT voice in the Senate who CAUCUSES with Dems. If you think he’s ever getting to the top, think again!
He does what he does well.
Over the years, Sanders has assimilated into the Dem party and become less and less 'Independent'. He only has remnants of the past now.
He's far removed from his original position.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,665
There is hope…
Intelligent, well-spoken, military veteran, husband, father, Cabinet Secretary, and the person I voted for in the Illinois Dem Primary!
Imagine a Presidential Debate between Buttigieg and DeSantis?!
I love Pete.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
LOL!!
It's funny, but these idiots!!
There were hardline Progressives talking about this issue about politicians not caring about citizens, years ago and were called 'fringe/ lunatics' and whatever. I've seen similar comments on these boards.
So now, when 'they' come knocking at your *door, when you ignored the warnings earlier because they didn't like the one shouting the warning, you have issues.
Now these jokers understand that both parties are ESSENTIALLY THE SAME and still some people don't understand with their little individual picks!!
It's funny, but these idiots!!
There were hardline Progressives talking about this issue about politicians not caring about citizens, years ago and were called 'fringe/ lunatics' and whatever. I've seen similar comments on these boards.
So now, when 'they' come knocking at your *door, when you ignored the warnings earlier because they didn't like the one shouting the warning, you have issues.
Now these jokers understand that both parties are ESSENTIALLY THE SAME and still some people don't understand with their little individual picks!!
Last edited:
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,665
However the GoP has pulled out of future presidential debates.Buttigieg is unbelievably articulate, knowledgeable and honest.
He would utterly destroy DeSantis in a debate.
When you don’t have a platform and you refuse to debate an opponent, one wonders how much further they have to leap before even stoopid people understand all the Rs have left is autocracy, demagoguery, sloganeering and gerrymandering?However the GoP has pulled out of future presidential debates.
The GOP…the Party of No!
'super majority' in the senate equalled "didn't have the numbers"? That's some mental gymnastics, right there!
It's times like this when you really expose yourself. Obama never had a supermajority in the senate, it just didn't exist. Between Franken's seat being contested, Kennedy dying and Byrd being hospitalised, he never got over 59.
Anyone who was around back then knows and remembers that (it was a massive, discourse dominating story for over a year), anyone who just parrots GOP talking points he picked up off youtube will repeat the lie he had one.
Lots of “intimation” but so little factual evidence. Post facto circumstantial punditry should be the red flag that helps you understand your position.A 'super majority' in the senate equalled "didn't have the numbers"? That's some mental gymnastics, right there!
As I have intimated and has Ball has intimated, the Dems have played brinkmanship with this case and had the chance to do something beforehand, but used it and other situations to 'get out the vote' and then doing nothing with those alluding promises (BBB/ Redlining/ Student Debt anyone?). You must see this, clear as day!
Rinse and repeat.
Strawmanning over 'Roe/ Rowe'?
A new low/ lowe!
Enjoy the weekend yourself.
Or, do I need a failed political wannabee TV/Podcast host YouTube video to “strengthen” my personal opinion???
I’m tired of explaining that a 60 vote “supermajority” is great, IF you have all your legislation literally waiting to be voted on, approved by the House, with no markups, and Congress is in session.
Do I have to go into all the ways the party out of power can slow things down?
You act like it’s all just a matter of bringing some boilerplate bill to the Senate floor for a vote, et voila!?!
I don’t have the time, or inclination, to argue BS minutae about things that never happened and were probably never going to happen.
You enjoy your contemplation…
Lots of “intimation” but so little factual evidence. Post facto circumstantial punditry should be the red flag that helps you understand your position.
Or, do I need a failed political wannabee TV/Podcast host YouTube video to “strengthen” my personal opinion???
I’m tired of explaining that a 60 vote “supermajority” is great, IF you have all your legislation literally waiting to be voted on, approved by the House, with no markups, and Congress is in session.
Do I have to go into all the ways the party out of power can slow things down?
You act like it’s all just a matter of bringing some boilerplate bill to the Senate floor for a vote, et voila!?!
I don’t have the time, or inclination, to argue BS minutae about things that never happened and were probably never going to happen.
You enjoy your contemplation…
You know he doesn't believe any of this shit, he's just a bad troll.
If the GOP came out tomorrow and banned grapefruit he'd write long posts about why grapefruits are evil and the democrats would have enshrined the right to eat a grapefruit in law if they were a real political party.
He's not always on the wrong side of everything by coincidence, it's because he seeks out positions to argue with you and @SWP's back and @FogBlueInSanFran
A fleeting, illusory supermajority
Their majority was smaller than some remember.
Sept. 3, 2012, 3:42 PM EDT
By Steve Benen
It's in Republicans' interest right now to characterize the Democrats' congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 as enormous. As the argument goes, President Obama could get literally anything he wanted from Congress in his first two years, so Democrats don't have any excuses.
The stimulus wasn't big enough? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There's no comprehensive immigration reform? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There was only one big jobs bill? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. And so on.
The right continued to push the line over the weekend.
I realize memories can be short in the political world, and 2010 seems like a long time ago, but it's unnerving when professionals who presumably keep up with current events are this wrong. Even if various pundits lost track of the specific details, I'd at least expect Fox News hosts to remember Sen. Scott Brown's (R) special-election win in Massachusetts.Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace falsely claimed Democrats had a 60-vote Senate majority for the first 2 years of his presidency."For the first 2 years he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate," Wallace told LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, making the case that Obama has only himself to blame for his poor economic record.
Since memories are short, let's take a brief stroll down memory lane, giving Wallace a hand with the recent history he's forgotten.
In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama's presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.
In April 2009, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still "only" 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.
In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.
In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.
In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.
In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy's vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd's health continued to deteriorate.
In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.
In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd's replacement was a Dem. He's right, though this doesn't change the larger point.]
Wallace believes the Dems' "filibuster proof majority in the Senate" lasted 24 months. In reality, he's off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans.
####
So, let me help you out…
There were 44 days where Congress was in session and Dems SUPPOSEDLY had this 60/40 vote count.
The above timeline helps explain why the RIGHT WING BULLSHIT BRIGADE OF LIARS AND HYPOCRITES is full of it, yet again.
Now, I’m done.
Last edited: