Joe Biden's Presidency

[valade16]

the whataboutism irony is thick on the left.

Not as thick as the whataboutism irony from this post.

[WES445]

Now you know damn well that I'm not saying something like not letting women vote...you tell me where I said or even implied something like that.

I am saying that they should not overrule the parliamentarian and just throw something into the legislation the rules don't allow. The thing about that is even if you do that, you don't get the $15 minimum wage AND you don't get the COVID legislation. If you do that, you lose the support of required moderate Democrats such as Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema. So going your way, causes a 48-52 vote failure and no $1400 checks to struggling families along with all the other benefits of the $1.9T.

And that practical consideration ignores the theoretical reason. Throwing out the basic rules of how the senate works is a very dangerous trend. I saw someone mention Amy Coney Barrett. Has anyone considered that had Democrats not abandoned the 60 vote threshold in 2013 that we might not have Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett in 2021? If the senate still required 60 votes for Supreme Court Justices, we would have far more moderate picks on the court.

Don't take it personally, I am just stating standing on norms was the excuse of those who fought against women's rights to vote. You are standing on norms to prevent the min. wage hike. Not directly, but the results are the same if you were. This clinging to norms for norm sake is counter-productive to raising the min wage.

I don't give a crap about norms if they are in the way. So I am sorry it isn't important to me as it with you. It is the Democrat's tradition to drag their feet on social issues and I am tired of it, so I very willing to break things, like political norms. Following these rules have gotten us jackcrap over the years, in fact, like now with not getting the min. wage hike.

So, when it comes to my issues, how is continuing to following the rules going to benefit me? This is the same song and dance when it comes to "not" addressing various social problems but not when it comes to cutting the wealth taxes or going to war. Rules get changed, additional presidential powers are given, speeches to rally the public to the cause, and a parade of talking heads advocating to get something these politicians really want, but social issues? While they were doing all of this, no one complained about not following rules or moving goalposts.

[brett05]

Not as thick as the whataboutism irony from this post.

Lucky me a second lap dog...will you also survive on your own waste?

[valade16]

Lucky me a second lap dog...will you also survive on your own waste?

Your comments are providing plenty of waste for everyone.

[spliff(TONE)]

So a lap dog is someone that laughs at all the dumb **** someone says?

[Crovash]

the whataboutism irony is thick on the left.

That’s not the only thing that is thick.

[dbroncos78087]

Don't take it personally, I am just stating standing on norms was the excuse of those who fought against women's rights to vote. You are standing on norms to prevent the min. wage hike. Not directly, but the results are the same if you were. This clinging to norms for norm sake is counter-productive to raising the min wage.

I don't give a crap about norms if they are in the way. So I am sorry it isn't important to me as it with you. It is the Democrat's tradition to drag their feet on social issues and I am tired of it, so I very willing to break things, like political norms. Following these rules have gotten us jackcrap over the years, in fact, like now with not getting the min. wage hike.

So, when it comes to my issues, how is continuing to following the rules going to benefit me? This is the same song and dance when it comes to "not" addressing various social problems but not when it comes to cutting the wealth taxes or going to war. Rules get changed, additional presidential powers are given, speeches to rally the public to the cause, and a parade of talking heads advocating to get something these politicians really want, but social issues? While they were doing all of this, no one complained about not following rules or moving goalposts.

I don't like the idea of throwing out norms for multiple reasons but the most practical is the fact that Republicans are extremely reactionary and will abuse the changes and do far more harm. We would still have a 6-3 Supreme Court but it would have to have been far more moderate had Democrats not made a similar to change to what everyone is pushing for back in 2013.

[brett05]

Your comments are providing plenty of waste for everyone.

such a loyal lap dog. So lucky to have two.

[brett05]

That’s not the only thing that is thick.

another god figure. So lucky for the board to have another.

[valade16]

such a loyal lap dog. So lucky to have two.

another god figure. So lucky for the board to have another.

Sounds like you had a lot more, you just put them all on ignore. I guess everyone who disagrees with you thinks they are a God and is your lapdog.

Maybe it's not the 7 other posters... maybe it's you...

[nastynice]

Brett's the biggest troll here, how does HE have OTHER PEOPLE on ignore?!? [emoji23][emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[brett05]

Sounds like you had a lot more, you just put them all on ignore. I guess everyone who disagrees with you thinks they are a God and is your lapdog.

Maybe it's not the 7 other posters... maybe it's you...

Way to use your "god" powers to get it wrong again. Top notch.

[valade16]

Way to use your "god" powers to get it wrong again. Top notch.

I'm literally counting your ignore list

[spliff(TONE)]

This board attracts some real characters....

[brett05]

I'm literally counting your ignore list

Yes it was your counting that was the issue puny god