Trump Biden or Liz Cheney

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

She is a much better politician than that. thus, she probably will never run for President.

What does this even mean? You have to be a bad politician to run for President?

Why would she waste her time running for an office she will not achieve when she can build a power base in the House? Those are the calculations of a good politician. People have done it to raise money for themselves, but she has enough visibility that she shoun't have that issue.

She is a very good Representative of her district & for the country, by many accounts, and is well suited to be one.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:

What does this even mean? You have to be a bad politician to run for President?

Why would she waste her time running for an office she will not achieve when she can build a power base in the House? Those are the calculations of a good politician. People have done it to raise money for themselves, but she has enough visibility that she shoun't have that issue.

She is a very good Representative of her district & for the country, by many accounts, and is well suited to be one.

If what you have been saying is true about moderates, the best AOC could hope for is House (or Senate) minority leader. That’s not much of a power base.

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Why would she waste her time running for an office she will not achieve when she can build a power base in the House? Those are the calculations of a good politician. People have done it to raise money for themselves, but she has enough visibility that she shoun't have that issue.

She is a very good Representative of her district & for the country, by many accounts, and is well suited to be one.

If what you have been saying is true about moderates, the best AOC could hope for is House (or Senate) minority leader. That’s not much of a power base.

Good point - and made better by the New Supreme Court's radical six.

Until the "moderates" see the Republicans for what they are the country is screwed.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
If what you have been saying is true about moderates, the best AOC could hope for is House (or Senate) minority leader. That’s not much of a power base.

Good point - and made better by the New Supreme Court's radical six.

Until the "moderates" see the Republicans for what they are the country is screwed.

Moderates are dying in droves. Soon there will be Progressives and far right wingers. The far right will dominate.

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Good point - and made better by the New Supreme Court's radical six.

Until the "moderates" see the Republicans for what they are the country is screwed.

Moderates are dying in droves. Soon there will be Progressives and far right wingers. The far right will dominate.

Not due to what "The People" want but due to the minority rule set up of The US Constitution and the Radical Courts which will be allowing the far-right legislatures to create gerrymandered districts.

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I don't disagree. Enough people just will not vote for a woman as President. One of the factors as to why Clinton lost.

Sanders would stand a better chance.

BTW - someone who is supporting Biden should not be bringing up age.

I want to see AOC run. I’m not a fan, but I’ve been hearing for several years now how wonderful and smart she is. It’s time to find out. Personally, I think it would be George McGovern all over again if she got the nomination, but prove me wrong.

So you want Trump or DeathSantis to win, just to prove a point to progressives?

MiamiSpartan wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
I want to see AOC run. I’m not a fan, but I’ve been hearing for several years now how wonderful and smart she is. It’s time to find out. Personally, I think it would be George McGovern all over again if she got the nomination, but prove me wrong.

So you want Trump or DeathSantis to win, just to prove a point to progressives?

Please point out where I said that. I’d vote for AOC if she got the nomination, but I doubt she would. I’m still waiting for Progressives on this board to give us the name of a Progressive candidate who has a legitimate chance to win.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Moderates are dying in droves. Soon there will be Progressives and far right wingers. The far right will dominate.

Not due to what "The People" want but due to the minority rule set up of The US Constitution and the Radical Courts which will be allowing the far-right legislatures to create gerrymandered districts.

I see you’re cranking up the excuse machine again. Do better.

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Not due to what "The People" want but due to the minority rule set up of The US Constitution and the Radical Courts which will be allowing the far-right legislatures to create gerrymandered districts.

I see you’re cranking up the excuse machine again. Do better.

Really wish you paid more attention to what is going on in Washington and how it all fits together.

People who are not paying attention, most, btw, are why we are the frog in the pot of water being heated up.

PennSpartan wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

So you want Trump or DeathSantis to win, just to prove a point to progressives?

Please point out where I said that. I’d vote for AOC if she got the nomination, but I doubt she would. I’m still waiting for Progressives on this board to give us the name of a Progressive candidate who has a legitimate chance to win.

You said, "I want to see AOC run". You also said that you think she'd lose if she got the nomination. Ergo, that makes Trump or DeathSantis the president.

I considered that you were saying that you want her to run in the primary and lose there, but since you said she'd be like George McGovern if she got the nomination, and then asked to be proved wrong, that implies that you are talking about her getting the nomination.

Or maybe you just didn't phrase it right. That's why my previous post was a question, even if a presumptive question.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
I see you’re cranking up the excuse machine again. Do better.

Really wish you paid more attention to what is going on in Washington and how it all fits together.

People who are not paying attention, most, btw, are why we are the frog in the pot of water being heated up.

I am paying attention. What I’m seeing is Trumpers still believe in the fat orange blob after 6 years of lies and crimes, while Dems are giving up on Biden after 18 months because they didn’t get the free stuff they wanted. Oh, I also didn’t see Right-to-Lifers give up after nearly 50 years of Roe, but you giving up after a week and a half.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Please point out where I said that. I’d vote for AOC if she got the nomination, but I doubt she would. I’m still waiting for Progressives on this board to give us the name of a Progressive candidate who has a legitimate chance to win.

You said, "I want to see AOC run". You also said that you think she'd lose if she got the nomination. Ergo, that makes Trump or DeathSantis the president.

I considered that you were saying that you want her to run in the primary and lose there, but since you said she'd be like George McGovern if she got the nomination, and then asked to be proved wrong, that implies that you are talking about her getting the nomination.

Or maybe you just didn't phrase it right. That's why my previous post was a question, even if a presumptive question.

I was expressing an opinion, not a wish.

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Really wish you paid more attention to what is going on in Washington and how it all fits together.

People who are not paying attention, most, btw, are why we are the frog in the pot of water being heated up.

I am paying attention. What I’m seeing is Trumpers still believe in the fat orange blob after 6 years of lies and crimes, while Dems are giving up on Biden after 18 months because they didn’t get the free stuff they wanted. Oh, I also didn’t see Right-to-Lifers give up after nearly 50 years of Roe, but you giving up after a week and a half.

I think it has less to do with the 18 months or “free stuff” and more the week and a half of democratic leadership, who controls two branches of government, being unwilling to do anything other than sing on the capitol steps and send fundraising emails.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
I am paying attention. What I’m seeing is Trumpers still believe in the fat orange blob after 6 years of lies and crimes, while Dems are giving up on Biden after 18 months because they didn’t get the free stuff they wanted. Oh, I also didn’t see Right-to-Lifers give up after nearly 50 years of Roe, but you giving up after a week and a half.

I think it has less to do with the 18 months or “free stuff” and more the week and a half of democratic leadership, who controls two branches of government, being unwilling to do anything other than sing on the capitol steps and send fundraising emails.

So what do you think should be done. Be specific. And realistic.

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Really wish you paid more attention to what is going on in Washington and how it all fits together.

People who are not paying attention, most, btw, are why we are the frog in the pot of water being heated up.

I am paying attention. What I’m seeing is Trumpers still believe in the fat orange blob after 6 years of lies and crimes, while Dems are giving up on Biden after 18 months because they didn’t get the free stuff they wanted. Oh, I also didn’t see Right-to-Lifers give up after nearly 50 years of Roe, but you giving up after a week and a half.

We are voting in tribes, now.

FWIW the Republicans were beaten badly in 2018, and still lost in 2020, due to all the Progressives & Anti-Trump moderates voting.

It was astounding to have multiple witnesses to the Jan6th committee state that even though they were detailing his crimes to the committee they would still vote for him in 2024. Tribe over country. Trump et al delivered what they wanted to these tribes but was also an embarrassment to some.

The Republicans have two major tribes, the religious zealots and the "moderates" both of whom will always vote for Republicans based on the tribe. From all reports, in 2020 they did that, but enough of them voted only down ballot and left the Presidential vote blank to cause Biden wins in key States.

The Democratics also have tribes. There are more, and with wider viewpoints, and with less commitment to voting. A good politician, and most at the Presidential level are very good, keeps the tribes who vote for them happy. Biden is doing what he thinks he can for the Progressives, with slow steps on student debt, for instance. However, the realities of the effects of covid & a war on the economy means that some moderates will not vote in 2022, and the lack of progress on the issues which matter to progressives mean the same there.

All that said, the long term is that we now have a radical court which will overrule much of what we have as laws with no qualms at all, and this is a huge deal. It looks like they are going to rule that only the State Legislatures control voting and voting districts and cannot be overruled by State Courts, Federal Courts or the US Congress. All the Republican controlled Legislatures will then set up their voting laws and districts to ensure Republican majorities at the State & Federal level and to ensure Republican candidates win the Presidency. This will put the Democratic Party as the permanent minority at the Federal level and the Courts will limit what the States can do to what the Conservatives support.

It is going to be a tough 40 years.

PennSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I think it has less to do with the 18 months or “free stuff” and more the week and a half of democratic leadership, who controls two branches of government, being unwilling to do anything other than sing on the capitol steps and send fundraising emails.

So what do you think should be done. Be specific. And realistic.

Well penn, given that I am not in democratic leadership and also I’ve had 5 minutes to consider it and not the 2 months that democratic leadership had to think about it, I’m not sure if that’s really a fair question to ask.

Coming out fully in support of getting rid of the filibuster and court expansion would be ideal. Even if you still have the Manchin and sinema out there to say no, at least try to put the pressure publicly instead of the current “whoopsie I guess there’s nothing we can do give us money pls”

Congress could also, a) not pass that ridiculous Supreme Court protection bill b) take away all of the things that they pay for that aren’t guaranteed in the constitution. Where do you think the money to pay for law clerks comes from penn? It comes from Congress. Pelosi passes the budget with money for them to have clerks in it. Take them away. Hell, the constitution doesn’t give the court a right to a palace with which to run the country. Make them work out of a public library for all I care. There are lots of things they could do if they wanted to be creative.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
So what do you think should be done. Be specific. And realistic.

Well penn, given that I am not in democratic leadership and also I’ve had 5 minutes to consider it and not the 2 months that democratic leadership had to think about it, I’m not sure if that’s really a fair question to ask.

Coming out fully in support of getting rid of the filibuster and court expansion would be ideal. Even if you still have the Manchin and sinema out there to say no, at least try to put the pressure publicly instead of the current “whoopsie I guess there’s nothing we can do give us money pls”

I don’t have any inside information, but I’m going to guess that Democratic leadership has tried everything regarding Manchin and Sinema. They have had closed door meetings and trips to the Oval Office. It went on for months. Seems they won’t budge. I think they made a huge mistake in going public with it before securing the votes of those two. But as my old boss used to remind me, you have to play with the cards you’re dealt. Manchin and Sinema are a no vote. So what now?

PennSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Well penn, given that I am not in democratic leadership and also I’ve had 5 minutes to consider it and not the 2 months that democratic leadership had to think about it, I’m not sure if that’s really a fair question to ask.

Coming out fully in support of getting rid of the filibuster and court expansion would be ideal. Even if you still have the Manchin and sinema out there to say no, at least try to put the pressure publicly instead of the current “whoopsie I guess there’s nothing we can do give us money pls”

I don’t have any inside information, but I’m going to guess

You’re not listening penn. This is the problem, right there in your first couple of words. If a bunch of your own voters see you apparently doing nothing while letting the other party, who controls nothing, dictate the course of things, then you need to start doing it publicly. No guesses or inside information necessary. Biden hasn’t said “I want to eliminate the filibuster and expand the court because they’re out of control and unaccountable to the American people”. Maybe he can’t get it done. But the perception right now is that he’s not doing anything. You’re assuming that he’s doing it behind closed doors because you desperately want to think he’s doing good. Other people need to see it.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
I don’t have any inside information, but I’m going to guess

You’re not listening penn. This is the problem, right there in your first couple of words. If a bunch of your own voters see you apparently doing nothing while letting the other party, who controls nothing, dictate the course of things, then you need to start doing it publicly. No guesses or inside information necessary. Biden hasn’t said “I want to eliminate the filibuster and expand the court because they’re out of control and unaccountable to the American people”. Maybe he can’t get it done. But the perception right now is that he’s not doing anything. You’re assuming that he’s doing it behind closed doors because you desperately want to think he’s doing good. Other people need to see it.

In defense of Penn's POV, there are two realities for Biden.

What he can get done with the cards he has.

What he can do to win the 2022 midterms.

They are different and there are opposing actions which hurt one while helping the other.

Where to draw the line is what politicians do.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
I don’t have any inside information, but I’m going to guess  

You’re not listening penn. This is the problem, right there in your first couple of words. If a bunch of your own voters see you apparently doing nothing while letting the other party, who controls nothing, dictate the course of things, then you need to start doing it publicly. No guesses or inside information necessary. Biden hasn’t said “I want to eliminate the filibuster and expand the court because they’re out of control and unaccountable to the American people”. Maybe he can’t get it done. But the perception right now is that he’s not doing anything. You’re assuming that he’s doing it behind closed doors because you desperately want to think he’s doing good. Other people need to see it.

I don’t know where you get your news, but I  heard Biden repeatedly calling for passage of BBB, and repeal of the filibuster.  For what it’s worth, I think repealing the filibuster is dumb.  Republicans will bury Dems in the future when they regain control, especially with a conservative court.  Let me ask you, do you think I could convince you to become a Michigan fan?  Could I and others somehow pressure you into it?  Maybe that’s what we’re facing with Manchin and Sinema.  They aren’t going to change their minds regardless.  The answer for me is to vote in massive numbers in November and increase the numbers of Dems in the Senate while keeping the house.  We have motivation now with the recent court decisions.  Then Manchin and Sinema become a moot point.

PennSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

You’re not listening penn. This is the problem, right there in your first couple of words. If a bunch of your own voters see you apparently doing nothing while letting the other party, who controls nothing, dictate the course of things, then you need to start doing it publicly. No guesses or inside information necessary. Biden hasn’t said “I want to eliminate the filibuster and expand the court because they’re out of control and unaccountable to the American people”. Maybe he can’t get it done. But the perception right now is that he’s not doing anything. You’re assuming that he’s doing it behind closed doors because you desperately want to think he’s doing good. Other people need to see it.

I don’t know where you get your news, but I  heard Biden repeatedly calling for passage of BBB, and repeal of the filibuster.  For what it’s worth, I think repealing the filibuster is dumb.  Republicans will bury Dems in the future when they regain control, especially with a conservative court.  Let me ask you, do you think I could convince you to become a Michigan fan?  Could I and others somehow pressure you into it?  Maybe that’s what we’re facing with Manchin an Sinema.  They aren’t going to change their minds regardless.  The answer for me is to vote in massive numbers in November and increase the numbers of Dems in the Senate while keeping the house.  We have motivation now with the recent court decisions.  Then Manchin and Sinema become a moot point.  

If that is the viewpoint, then Biden should be doing everything he can to get Progressives to vote.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
I don’t know where you get your news, but I  heard Biden repeatedly calling for passage of BBB, and repeal of the filibuster.  For what it’s worth, I think repealing the filibuster is dumb.  Republicans will bury Dems in the future when they regain control, especially with a conservative court.  Let me ask you, do you think I could convince you to become a Michigan fan?  Could I and others somehow pressure you into it?  Maybe that’s what we’re facing with Manchin an Sinema.  They aren’t going to change their minds regardless.  The answer for me is to vote in massive numbers in November and increase the numbers of Dems in the Senate while keeping the house.  We have motivation now with the recent court decisions.  Then Manchin and Sinema become a moot point.  

If that is the viewpoint, then Biden should be doing everything he can to get Progressives to vote.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
I don’t know where you get your news, but I  heard Biden repeatedly calling for passage of BBB, and repeal of the filibuster.  For what it’s worth, I think repealing the filibuster is dumb.  Republicans will bury Dems in the future when they regain control, especially with a conservative court.  Let me ask you, do you think I could convince you to become a Michigan fan?  Could I and others somehow pressure you into it?  Maybe that’s what we’re facing with Manchin an Sinema.  They aren’t going to change their minds regardless.  The answer for me is to vote in massive numbers in November and increase the numbers of Dems in the Senate while keeping the house.  We have motivation now with the recent court decisions.  Then Manchin and Sinema become a moot point.  

If that is the viewpoint, then Biden should be doing everything he can to get Progressives to vote.

He shouldn’t have to. Do you need someone to tell you to vote? I don’t. I vote every time. But I have heard Joe saying Dems have a great reason to vote in November because of these recent decisions.

PennSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

You’re not listening penn. This is the problem, right there in your first couple of words. If a bunch of your own voters see you apparently doing nothing while letting the other party, who controls nothing, dictate the course of things, then you need to start doing it publicly. No guesses or inside information necessary. Biden hasn’t said “I want to eliminate the filibuster and expand the court because they’re out of control and unaccountable to the American people”. Maybe he can’t get it done. But the perception right now is that he’s not doing anything. You’re assuming that he’s doing it behind closed doors because you desperately want to think he’s doing good. Other people need to see it.

I don’t know where you get your news, but I  heard Biden repeatedly calling for passage of BBB, and repeal of the filibuster.

This is 100% false. You did not hear him calling for getting rid of the filibuster with regard to bbb. That did not happen. A) because I pretty sure they were trying to pass that via budget reconciliation so the filibuster was irrelevant and b) well simply because he didn’t say that back then.

He did recently, like two days ago, say they should temporarily get rid of it regarding roe. But it was a weak effort as he simultaneously said they don’t have the votes and kinda shrugged back to the “nothing we can do with all this power give us money do we can still have power pls”

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
I don’t know where you get your news, but I  heard Biden repeatedly calling for passage of BBB, and repeal of the filibuster.

This is 100% false. You did not hear him calling for getting rid of the filibuster with regard to bbb. That did not happen. A) because I pretty sure they were trying to pass that via budget reconciliation so the filibuster was irrelevant and b) well simply because he didn’t say that back then.

He did recently, like two days ago, say they should temporarily get rid of it regarding roe. But it was a weak effort as he simultaneously said they don’t have the votes and kinda shrugged back to the “nothing we can do with all this power give us money do we can still have power pls”

Okay, you’re right.  Like TrapperGus said, it’s going to be 40 years of hell.  Let’s just give up.  Joe and the Democrats probably just want to lose, it’s easier than winning.  Is that what you want to hear?
Edit: Manchin and Sinema are against changing the filibuster and BBB. Play with the cards you’re dealt.

PennSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

This is 100% false. You did not hear him calling for getting rid of the filibuster with regard to bbb. That did not happen. A) because I pretty sure they were trying to pass that via budget reconciliation so the filibuster was irrelevant and b) well simply because he didn’t say that back then.

He did recently, like two days ago, say they should temporarily get rid of it regarding roe. But it was a weak effort as he simultaneously said they don’t have the votes and kinda shrugged back to the “nothing we can do with all this power give us money do we can still have power pls”

Okay, you’re right.  Like TrapperGus said, it’s going to be 40 years of hell.  Let’s just give up.  Joe and the Democrats probably just want to lose, it’s easier than winning.  Is that what you want to hear?
Edit: Manchin and Sinema are against changing the filibuster and BBB. Play with the cards you’re dealt.

No penn, that isn’t what I want to hear. You asked me what I want to hear like 5 posts ago, and I told you. And if our long time democratic leadership isn’t capable of fighting anymore, then it’s time they acknowledge that and step aside.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Okay, you’re right.  Like TrapperGus said, it’s going to be 40 years of hell.  Let’s just give up.  Joe and the Democrats probably just want to lose, it’s easier than winning.  Is that what you want to hear?
Edit: Manchin and Sinema are against changing the filibuster and BBB. Play with the cards you’re dealt.

No penn, that isn’t what I want to hear. You asked me what I want to hear like 5 posts ago, and I told you. And if our long time democratic leadership isn’t capable of fighting anymore, then it’s time they acknowledge that and step aside.

But your premise is unreasonable. If Joe Biden has the power to change minds, he should have called the Supreme Court and convinced them not to overturn Roe. Presidents have lost Congressional votes for as long this country has existed. Biden wasn’t alone in this fight. Forty Eight Senators tried to convince Manchin and Sinema and failed.

Did he? Because earlier you said “I am guessing that he tried”. Now you’re saying “he tried.”

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Did he? Because earlier you said “I am guessing that he tried”. Now you’re saying “he tried.”

Maybe not. What I do know is that Joe is not a Progressive but people were pushing for Progressive policy. Maybe he said F it.

Welp, apparently Biden tried too hard to get Manchin to change his mind.

A veteran activist who deals with the White House and followed the BBB negotiations says Biden and his team overplayed their hand when it came to earning Manchin’s support. “I think that the White House really, really, really wanted BBB before the holiday,” the activist says. “They overcooked the milk on BBB. I think they pushed him too hard and pissed him off.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/machin-biden-build-back-better-vote-climate-change-1274039/

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

This is a great topic, DWags.  I'm a little concerned that just by clearing the low bar of not being a MAGA, Cheney has caused people to overlook her policies.  She is very conservative and has a history of attacking party members who compromise with Democrats.  She looks like a reasonable adult next to Trump, but who doesn't?

Well, I mean, the topic (which you called great) is literally just putting her next to Trump and Biden. So naturally people are putting her above Trump.

And if I'm not mistaken, everyone here who voiced any support for her also noted that it isn't based on policy, so no one is overlooking her policies (the opposite, in fact).

But policy, especially domestic policy, doesn't move the needle much for me when it comes to Presidents. They can't do a lot without Congress. I don't have a big political agenda that I want pushed through. I just want honest, good faith evaluation and negotiation of things. Of course, that was pre-Trump. It's a different world, now.

I think it's a great topic because it shook up the normal allies on the board, and I like that. Instead of overlook, I should have said disregard.

I can't disregard her policies, especially when she's deeply entrenched in supply-side conservatism. She wholeheartedly supported the corporate tax cut, and she's not very honest about the topic of taxation.

She claimed that Biden's stimulus would lead to middle-class tax increases, even though the package included fairly sizable tax cuts for the middle class. And if she's implying that eventually there will be middle class tax hikes to pay for it, that's at least partially due to her party pushing the tax burden off of corporations. If you ever want a good example of the phrase "full of shit", just think of a Republican talking about taxation. Cheney is no exception.

I'll admit that she's impressive in the hearings, and clearly has more courage than almost the entire rest of her party combined. But keep in mind that cowardly subservience to Trump is the norm. It's not that hard to appear courageous next to Ted Cruz.

We already lived through one Cheney presidency, and that didn't turn out so well. I'd like to avoid another.

PennSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Did he? Because earlier you said “I am guessing that he tried”. Now you’re saying “he tried.”

Maybe not. What I do know is that Joe is not a Progressive but people were pushing for Progressive policy. Maybe he said F it.

Yeah maybe he said fuck if on a policy that 66%+ of the country supports. “Why do people not like my guy anymore??”

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/lead/Documents/Boomers%20exposed%20to%20higher%20levels%20of%20lead.pdf

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Maybe not. What I do know is that Joe is not a Progressive but people were pushing for Progressive policy. Maybe he said F it.

Yeah maybe he said fuck if on a policy that 66%+ of the country supports. “Why do people not like my guy anymore??”

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/lead/Documents/Boomers%20exposed%20to%20higher%20levels%20of%20lead.pdf

Yeah, TrapperGus likes to post these opinion polls, too. The best polls are taken on Election Day, IMO. Biden won. If you don’t like his policy positions, vote him out.

PennSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Yeah maybe he said fuck if on a policy that 66%+ of the country supports. “Why do people not like my guy anymore??”

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/lead/Documents/Boomers%20exposed%20to%20higher%20levels%20of%20lead.pdf

Yeah, TrapperGus likes to post these opinion polls, too. The best polls are taken on Election Day, IMO. Biden won. If you don’t like his policy positions, vote him out.

We went over this the other day, but election cycles are only once every 4 years penn.

My link isn’t to a poll.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Yeah, TrapperGus likes to post these opinion polls, too. The best polls are taken on Election Day, IMO. Biden won. If you don’t like his policy positions, vote him out.

We went over this the other day, but election cycles are only once every 4 years penn.

My link isn’t to a poll.

I read the link. Not sure what you were referring to, other than the environmental part of BBB. You said 66% of the country supports that policy. But they don’t vote that way. You also said Biden didn’t push hard enough and I posted a link saying he pushed too hard. The point I have been trying to make for months is if you want specific policy enacted, get the people in office that will enact that policy. I’ve argued this with Trapper dozens of times. Get 60 Progressives in the Senate and a majority of Progressives in the House and you can tell moderates like me to fuck off. Until then, it is what it is.

Speak of the Devil:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-democrats-edging-closer-deal-114000793.html

PennSpartan wrote:Speak of the Devil:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-democrats-edging-closer-deal-114000793.html

Look at those moderates cockblocking Biden while the progressives fall in line.

PennSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

We went over this the other day, but election cycles are only once every 4 years penn.

My link isn’t to a poll.

I read the link. Not sure what you were referring to, other than the environmental part of BBB. You said 66% of the country supports that policy. But they don’t vote that way. You also said Biden didn’t push hard enough and I posted a link saying he pushed too hard. The point I have been trying to make for months is if you want specific policy enacted, get the people in office that will enact that policy. I’ve argued this with Trapper dozens of times. Get 60 Progressives in the Senate and a majority of Progressives in the House and you can tell moderates like me to fuck off. Until then, it is what it is.

When there are more Progressives, by far, than moderates in Congress, and the reasons that Progressive policies are not happening is that the moderates are voting with the Republicans I'm really not seeing your point, other than moderates would rather turn their back on their friends and join their enemies.

If the Democratic Party had the voting discipline of the Republican Party, we would be better of policy wise. Of course, the Republicans maintain that voting discipline via fear of loss of campaign money, so in the sense of having every voice heard the Democratic Party's organization is more democratic.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
I read the link.  Not sure what you were referring to, other than the environmental part of BBB.  You said 66% of the country supports that policy.  But they don’t vote that way.  You also said Biden didn’t push hard enough and I posted a link saying he pushed too hard.  The point I have been trying to make for months is if you want specific policy enacted, get the people in office that will enact that policy.  I’ve argued this with Trapper dozens of times.  Get 60 Progressives in the Senate and a majority of Progressives in the House and you can tell moderates like me to fuck off.  Until then, it is what it is.  

When there are more Progressives, by far, than moderates in Congress, and the reasons that Progressive policies are not happening is that the moderates are voting with the Republicans I'm really not seeing your point, other than moderates would rather turn their back on their friends and join their enemies.  

If the Democratic Party had the voting discipline of the Republican Party, we would be better of policy wise.  Of course, the Republicans maintain that voting discipline via fear of loss of campaign money, so in the sense of having every voice heard the Democratic Party's organization is more democratic.

Someone forgot that AOC and her squad voted with Republicans on the infrastructure bill.

Edit: You keep misstating this claim about Progressives. There are 212 Republicans in the house. None of them are Progressives. Add in the moderate Dems and Progressives do not make a majority.

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

When there are more Progressives, by far, than moderates in Congress, and the reasons that Progressive policies are not happening is that the moderates are voting with the Republicans I'm really not seeing your point, other than moderates would rather turn their back on their friends and join their enemies.  

If the Democratic Party had the voting discipline of the Republican Party, we would be better of policy wise.  Of course, the Republicans maintain that voting discipline via fear of loss of campaign money, so in the sense of having every voice heard the Democratic Party's organization is more democratic.

Someone forgot that AOC and her squad voted with Republicans on the infrastructure bill.

Edit:  You keep misstating this claim about Progressives.  There are 212 Republicans in the house.  None of them are Progressives.  Add in the moderate Dems and Progressives do not make a majority.  

AOC and the other Progressives who voted against had the Demcratic Leadership's permission to vote this way since the "Moderates plus the Progressives" had the votes to pass the bill.  If their votes had been needed for passage they would have voted differently.

As to my point about the Progressives having more members than the moderates, it stands.  That the few moderates are voting with the Republicans suggests they are not moderate, but Conservative, it does not support the argument that all the Republicans are moderates.

It is good that the "moderates" for their own personal reasons, continue to vote with the Progressives on some issues.