Joe Biden's Presidency

[WES445]

Because one of the posters here - namely, you - is the person that expressed the opinion. Is this the stance you take on everything here? Why talk about it if we're not the ones actually implementing the solution? What's the point of talking about anything here, then?

Feel free to find that answer with another poster, we ran the course here.

[natepro]

It's most likely correct. That's not the same thing as having more dems means we would get those things though. That's the point of his response to you. You just quoted it.

It is a real criticism to point out that those key aspects are missing from the bill. It is fair to question how much the dems are willing to fight to make larger changes based on what we have seen from this party time and time again. There are issues with the party/system even if he doesn't have all the answers he was correct there too. You pushed him because it was a way to deflect from those issues within to point the finger at him for not having an answer. As I keep explaining it's exactly what the cult members on the other side of the aisle do. You kept playing but what about with him as well.

All 3 of you are the posters on the left I argue with most probably. You being the least likely so I picked you to engage with since it had been a while since we had. I also hoped you would be the most open to looking back at the situation and admit what was going on. He openly states that he isn't smart enough on issues or have answers across multiple topics and threads. I agree he goes over the top sometimes with strawman but look who he is responding to. I dealt with strawman coming from you earlier so it isn't a one way street all on him. I don't know how in depth I need to go bashing another poster before you stop playing the same but what about him. It's no different then when I am accused of only going at conservatives.

This is why it seems obvious you are just playing the same games. I am open on going further and answering some of those questions if you would like. I also don't have the answers but as I showed earlier I have some at least worth engaging on if we want to get into the issues with the party. Those issues are why many don't trust them to push for actual change even if they do have two more as you get at. This bill had key pieces missing in part due to where we are at with the party/system. We just had Trump as POTUS and Roe v Wade has been overturned. A lot of the points he was making have validity whether or not Wes himself is perfect. I am willing to go further on those issues if you actually want answers/thoughts from someone who largely agrees with some of his main points.

Having more Democrats in the Senate means we'd likely have a voting rights bill signed into law, as well as the initial BBB plan or at least significantly closer to it.

I didn't say it wasn't a real criticism; I wish they were in it too. The reality of the situation means that, as things stand, this is the best we were going to get right now. A couple weeks ago, we weren't even getting this. It's an improvement, and I'm not going to pretend that it isn't.

I already explained why I pushed him on it; making up reasons isn't going to change it or magically make them true. The "burn it down" **** is pointless. In the end, even he wasn't actually arguing for anything that could remotely be described as "burning it down." Just "elect new people."

Great.

What party will they belong to? The Republicans are obviously not electing anyone that would vote for any of those things, so they're out. There is no viable third party in this country, because the voting system defaults to two parties; so, they're Democrats.

Unless the plan is to change the way we elect people, but again, Republicans exist and aren't going to support something like that when it so clearly benefits them, so you'll have to magically find an overwhelming majority of non-Republican voters willing to elect people and/or vote for ballot measures to make that happen. Good luck with that.

Unless and until that happens, we're back to these new "burn it down" people we've elected being Democrats.

Holy ****, it's exactly what I said in the beginning.

I can make this into some kind of flow chart for you two if that would be easier. Regardless, the equation isn't going to change, no matter how much you try to make it disingenuous or call it playing games or whatever other things you want to try to pin on me. Asking how you accomplish something is both relevant and pretty goddamned important. I'm not going to pretend it's not just because it's easier to ignore that part.

[natepro]

Feel free to find that answer with another poster, we ran the course here.

I guess those are just more questions you don't have the answer to. Again, you can imagine my surprise.

[WES445]

I guess those are just more questions you don't have the answer to. Again, you can imagine my surprise.

Like I give care if you are anything. But keep whinnying, it fits you.

"Wes won't engage with me, waa waaa." get over yourself, I have.

[mngopher35]

Having more Democrats in the Senate means we'd likely have a voting rights bill signed into law, as well as the initial BBB plan or at least significantly closer to it.

I didn't say it wasn't a real criticism; I wish they were in it too. The reality of the situation means that, as things stand, this is the best we were going to get right now. A couple weeks ago, we weren't even getting this. It's an improvement, and I'm not going to pretend that it isn't.

I already explained why I pushed him on it; making up reasons isn't going to change it or magically make them true. The "burn it down" **** is pointless. In the end, even he wasn't actually arguing for anything that could remotely be described as "burning it down." Just "elect new people."

Great.

What party will they belong to? The Republicans are obviously not electing anyone that would vote for any of those things, so they're out. There is no viable third party in this country, because the voting system defaults to two parties; so, they're Democrats.

Unless the plan is to change the way we elect people, but again, Republicans exist and aren't going to support something like that when it so clearly benefits them, so you'll have to magically find an overwhelming majority of non-Republican voters willing to elect people and/or vote for ballot measures to make that happen. Good luck with that.

Unless and until that happens, we're back to these new "burn it down" people we've elected being Democrats.

Holy ****, it's exactly what I said in the beginning.

I can make this into some kind of flow chart for you two if that would be easier. Regardless, the equation isn't going to change, no matter how much you try to make it disingenuous or call it playing games or whatever other things you want to try to pin on me. Asking how you accomplish something is both relevant and pretty goddamned important. I'm not going to pretend it's not just because it's easier to ignore that part.

I would definitely hope that is what it means but it also could mean more interests to cater to in a worst case scenario. Again given what people have seen there isn't a lot of faith.

Well you said this so it seemed like you were saying he didn't have real criticism and was ignoring reality to complain. I think the reality is that he had real criticism and you deflected from it to paint it as if he was ignoring reality for not having solutions.

You've at least managed to get something right: him not having an answer is why I pushed on it, because it's not a solution to anything. It's not even a real criticism, it's just ignoring reality so he can complain. And you have, apparently, decided this is both valid and worth defending. You can imagine my surprise.

Yes, as I said from the start democrats are generally better lol. We are agreed on that aspect there is no need to keep try and pointing it out. The point that being better than crap doesn't mean you are good is still a valid one. It isn't in conflict with the idea democrats are better than republicans in terms of passing this. I agree with both your point on that and most of what Wes was saying.

As everyone has said he doesn't have the answers and he also noted earlier it's a figure of speech. Focusing so much on semantics is only helping my overall point here haha.

I have already given multiple examples of issues and you ignored it to whine about Wes lol. Stop this ridiculous nonsense. There are issues in regards to how the party operates that play into the democrats we get. The democrats we get play into how many continue to be in office based on their performance. That's a cycle that really holds us back based on real issues. If you want to get into some of it then you should have responded when I made some of these points and talked about DNC/Hillary earlier. I tried getting into the issues in accomplishing things too earlier and they were mostly ignored for the same focus on Wes. As I keep saying we can have that conversation any time you want but you don't actually seem to want to there is a different agenda here...

[natepro]

Like I give care if you are anything. But keep whinnying, it fits you.

"Wes won't engage with me, waa waaa." get over yourself, I have.

Careful, you're going to make yourself horse.

[natepro]

I would definitely hope that is what it means but it also could mean more interests to cater to in a worst case scenario. Again given what people have seen there isn't a lot of faith.

Well you said this so it seemed like you were saying he didn't have real criticism and was ignoring reality to complain. I think the reality is that he had real criticism and you deflected from it to paint it as if he was ignoring reality for not having solutions.


Yes, as I said from the start democrats are generally better lol. We are agreed on that aspect there is no need to keep try and pointing it out. The point that being better than crap doesn't mean you are good is still a valid one. It isn't in conflict with the idea democrats are better than republicans in terms of passing this. I agree with both your point on that and most of what Wes was saying.

As everyone has said he doesn't have the answers and he also noted earlier it's a figure of speech. Focusing so much on semantics is only helping my overall point here haha.

I have already given multiple examples of issues and you ignored it to whine about Wes lol. Stop this ridiculous nonsense. There are issues in regards to how the party operates that play into the democrats we get. The democrats we get play into how many continue to be in office based on their performance. That's a cycle that really holds us back based on real issues. If you want to get into some of it then you should have responded when I made some of these points and talked about DNC/Hillary earlier. I tried getting into the issues in accomplishing things too earlier and they were mostly ignored for the same focus on Wes. As I keep saying we can have that conversation any time you want but you don't actually seem to want to there is a different agenda here...

He is ignoring reality to complain. He can't even maintain any internal consistency while doing it.

You're talking about him more than I am at this point, while continuing to insist I stop talking about him.

Frankly, I can only read "partisan hack" or watch you play psychic with me so many times before my eyes glaze over. That discussion, much like this one, sounds entirely pointless to me.

[mngopher35]

He is ignoring reality to complain. He can't even maintain any internal consistency while doing it.

You're talking about him more than I am at this point, while continuing to insist I stop talking about him.

Frankly, I can only read "partisan hack" or watch you play psychic with me so many times before my eyes glaze over. That discussion, much like this one, sounds entirely pointless to me.

I think his main complaints that I keep pointing to are a reality. I agree he hasn't been able to be consistent since the questioning but that's irrelevant to those point as I keep getting at.

I am responding to you lol. Earlier in the thread I was talking about those actual issues. You ignored them and left it out of a response to focus on Wes. I tried discussing both and you kept your focus on one aspect. That's why I keep saying it seems obvious it wasn't even genuine interest from the start. Let alone the strawman etc. after I responded to you.

Sounds good. If you don't want to actually discuss those questions/answers you were claiming are so important with Wes that's fine. Sure seems to continue to help my point though because now I am the only one who seemingly cares. It's almost like you used it to deflect and play games like I said from the start. I have little sympathy you feel he responded over the top in responses to your nonsense.

As I keep saying I will gladly have those conversations anytime you want. You don't want to so we won't have them. Sorry for using the correct terminology and that I give clear examples of similar behavior as well in pointing out your disingenuous responses. Maybe next time just don't play games?

[dbroncos78087]

I just prefer to see a suggestion of a positive action to be taken. We can all get upset about what should be in the bill, but a bill with those things isn’t getting 50 votes and thus it’s not helpful to complain about it.

Chuck Schumer isn’t happy about the $35 insulin removal. So he’s going to bring it up as a standalone bill. Hopefully they can shame Republicans into doing the right thing for the 60 vote threshold it will require.

[natepro]

I think his main complaints that I keep pointing to are a reality. I agree he hasn't been able to be consistent since the questioning but that's irrelevant to those point as I keep getting at.

I am responding to you lol. Earlier in the thread I was talking about those actual issues. You ignored them and left it out of a response to focus on Wes. I tried discussing both and you kept your focus on one aspect. That's why I keep saying it seems obvious it wasn't even genuine interest from the start. Let alone the strawman etc. after I responded to you.

Sounds good. If you don't want to actually discuss those questions/answers you were claiming are so important with Wes that's fine. Sure seems to continue to help my point though because now I am the only one who seemingly cares. It's almost like you used it to deflect and play games like I said from the start. I have little sympathy you feel he responded over the top in responses to your nonsense.

As I keep saying I will gladly have those conversations anytime you want. You don't want to so we won't have them. Sorry for using the correct terminology and that I give clear examples of similar behavior as well in pointing out your disingenuous responses. Maybe next time just don't play games?

I will continue to not play games, just as I wasn't here, Miss Cleo.

[mngopher35]

I just prefer to see a suggestion of a positive action to be taken. We can all get upset about what should be in the bill, but a bill with those things isn’t getting 50 votes and thus it’s not helpful to complain about it.

Chuck Schumer isn’t happy about the $35 insulin removal. So he’s going to bring it up as a standalone bill. Hopefully they can shame Republicans into doing the right thing for the 60 vote threshold it will require.

I agree forcing people to vote and putting pressure on them being exposed can be worth it. That's part of why an amendment to add the most wanted aspect back in and putting pressure on Manchin would be one suggestion of how to put him on the spot. Either get everything you wanted and compromise here for the people or be the one exposed as stopping everyone from getting it.

At the end of the day we will see how much Democrats are able to get done. There are a lot of people unhappy with the status quo right now. If they can't deliver and it's democrats getting in the way it really puts into question the strategy they keep pushing. The issues around the DNC, Super pacs, and how the party operates are worth getting into if we continue to see failure on basic common sense issues. There are currently democrats stopping us on issues it isn't only republicans. The party itself needs to acknowledge it might be time to actually change a bit.

[mngopher35]

I will continue to not play games, just as I wasn't here, Miss Cleo.

Hahahaha thank you for this. It reads exactly like a post from your favorite on here.

[natepro]

Happy to help.

[dbroncos78087]

Wild to see someone run as a Democrat in Vermont.

[Sick Of It All]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk