The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Do please tell me about the support that the small minority of Republican Congresspeople received from Trumpist leaders and Fox propagandists when they voted for the 2021 Infrastructure Act.
You can clearly see how this plays out. If Republicans are in charge, and they want to pass a bill that’s good for the nation, then the Democrats work with them. If the Democrats are in charge, the Republicans will refuse to support legislation, even though they will later take credit for the jobs and infrastructure it brought to their constituents.
The Republicans are not out to improve the country, they are out to win. To pwn the libs, and to hurt people who deserve it.
This statement tells me that you like to poison wells.
19 of 50 GOP Senators voted for this bill.
13 of 213 GOP Congressmen voted for this bill.
This is embracing a sound idea?
On Merrick Garland, I do remember Republicans objecting that he wasn’t getting a hearing. Of course, I also remember other Republicans saying that Obama wimped out, or made a mistake by expecting Hillary to appoint an even more left-lean justice after she was elected. Looks like those Republicans made the right call about Obama. As far as the Affordable Care Act, I know some of my Democrat friends objected it to it, so it certainly wasn’t flawless. Maybe a policy that works for a small, relatively prosperous state has issues scaling up?
However, I get your point. Merrick Garland was treated unfairly. There’s no longer any political benefit in acknowledging that publicly, but suggesting a return to civility in politics might be a good starting point for a moderate Republican. Likewise, US health care has been a mess for decades. The ACA didn’t sort out that mess. If the Republicans think there’s a better solution (a hybrid compromise between private insurance and medicare-for all?) then they should be searching for it, rather than just killing the Obama solution. Again, a starting point for Republican moderates. It will probably be a difficult effort to promote sensible, traditional Republican politics. But the alternatives are to surrender the Republican Party to the Trumpists, or even worse, give up to the Democrats.
This statement told me all I needed to know about your politics. The poison was there before you got near the well.
Did they object to McConnel? If not then it doesn’t mean anything at all.
They made the right call on him wimping out? What was he supposed to do, smack McConnell around until his nominee got a hearing?
And no one claimed it was. As mentioned, it was based on a conservative position, so was kinda flawed from the get-go. But then it got locked in half baked, and with no Republican support, it was what it was, and there was no way to change or improve it.
No, that wasn’t the issue that people had with it.
Basically like getting a hit in, then calling for a truce. Again and again and again. How many times do you think that we should fall for that?
ACA helped, but you are right, it is a mess that needs to be addressed seriously.
Right, which is why they haven’t done so. As stated, they don’t care about the American people, just about power.
This statement tells everyone everything they need to know about your politics.
Yes, that I base them on reality, rather than on half remembered anecdotes from “friends” on both sides".
Tell me, who is willing to hold the debt ceiling hostage to push through unpopular agendas?
Yes, that’s how a poisoned well works. You poisoned it before anyone got near it.
And yet, he didn’t get one, did he?
The idea here is that Obama nominated a guy Republicans had specifically said they’d be okay with as a nominee, in the hopes that the Republicans would renege on that and hold the spot open in an unprecedented move, so that Hillary could then swoop in and nominate a radical leftist?
There’s no universe where that theory makes any fucking sense at all.
I didn’t say it was “flawless,” and that wasn’t the question asked. ObamaCare was a Republican idea until a Democrat agreed with it, and then it was literally a plot to murder old people.
Did a lot of Democrats not like this Republican health care scheme? Yes, obviously. But Democrats opposing a plan from a Republican, and then opposing the same plan from a Democrat, is not remotely the same thing as Republicans supporting a plan from a Republican, then opposing it when its put forward by a Democrat.
Because the Republicans refused to allow Merrick Garland to be appointed to the Supreme Court.
EDIT: I should have kept reading before responding, but what the hell, it bears repeating.
…Filler…
Funny, this is exactly what many Republicans say about Democrats. Difference is, our evidence is abundant and explicit, and theirs is “They tried to make me wear a mask.”
You’re lucky. In Missouri, it’s huntin’ season!
… to stop me from killing people, which is MY RIGHT.
Instead of replying to your point-by-point rebuttal, and encouraging a threadshit, let me ask you a simple question. Do you sincerely think the Republican Party has turned into a proto-Fascist party? I obviously disagree with that idea and think it’s hyperbole from Trump/Republican haters.
off topic reply hidden by What Exit?
I certainly have seen evidence that such is happening, yes.
And I think that your thought here is based on your hyperbole and projection of hate. I don’t hate Trump, nor Republicans. I have seen evidence of Trump committing crimes before running for office, while running for office, while holding office, and while trying to retain an office he lost. I have seen evidence of Republicans assisting in these crimes. They care more about personal power than the people that they represent, and are willing to harm the people of this country in order to get it.
Do you prosecute a criminal because you hate them, or because of the crimes they have committed?
It’s not hatred that causes me to see why Republicans, and even moreso, Trump Republicans, are bad for our country, it’s based on the actions they have taken.
You have been conditioned to see everything from a tribal lense, to root for your team, no matter what, and to hate your opponent for the sole reason that they are your opponent, and you assume that everyone else has been as well.
I look at the policies that are pushed by the different parties, and judge based on those. Those pushed by the Democrats work towards a more prosperous future for everyone, and those pushed by the Republicans work towards a less prosperous future for everyone, but with that prosperity in the hands of the few.
If your actual policy desire if for the wealthy to get more wealthy at the expense of the rest of the country and the world, then Republican policies are for you.
Republicans tend to get so caught up in the game, so enraptured with supporting their team, that they completely ignore what it actually is that they are supporting
.
Modnote: enough of the hijack. That back and forth is not for this thread. If you wish to continue take it to a new thread.
Hid off-topic post
My opinion is that Mitch MacDonnell was wrong in not allowing a hearing and a vote for Merrick Garland as a Supreme Court justice. And it was hypocrisy for the Senate Republican leadership to state that Merrick Garland was a suitable nominee, and then not accept him. It was also incredibly partisan, and in the context of this thread, moderate Republicans should be rejecting that kind of partisanship in the future. Otherwise, they’re surrendering their party to the rightists.
At the risk of a hijack, two other thoughts:
-
Obama could have forced a showdown on the nomination if he wanted to. He couldn’t have forced Senate hearings. But the Constitutional requirement is the “Advice and Consent of the Senate”. If he had wanted to, Obama could have bypassed the Senate hearings. For example, he could have written a letter to each Senator asking for their advice and consent. Then, unless he received a majority of replies denying consent, he could have stated that he had followed the Constitutional process and his nominee was confirmed. I think the main reason Obama didn’t pursue such an action was that he didn’t want a Constitutional crisis. But a secondary reason was that he thought he didn’t need to. He thought Hillary would win and would have a Senate majority behind her. Furthermore, creating such a crisis would be a distraction from Hillary’s campaign, and possibly harmful to it. Total speculation of my part. But it does seem like Obama just rolled over when MacDonnell refused to hold hearings instead of doing everything in his power to force the issue.
-
That Supreme Court nomination victory was a huge win for the Republicans. And as much as I’m arguing for bipartisanship and centrism, there’s no denying it was a victory. I think for both Republican centrists and Democrats, it’s counterproductive to try to bring up that defeat. Stating that the other side won by cheating only emphasises that you lost.
Is a pretty good clue, you probably need to not post it to the current thread.
There is less latitude for hijacks in P&E and GD, especially when the thread is still fresh and active.
You can start a new thread, there is also an option in the reply window to Reply as a Linked Topic. A nice feature. It is under the arrow button in the upper left corner of the reply box.
-
Identify local candidates you can support. Volunteer a couple hours a week to make phone calls or do door-to-door canvassing on behalf of those candidates. Their campaign staff will be happy to guide you in this.
-
Identify nonlocal candidates you can support. See if they have a postcard campaign element; if so, they will supply you with postcards, a suggested script, and a list of voter names/addresses to whom you can direct your postcards. Also, sign up to make phone calls on behalf of the candidate.
-
Sign up to be an election judge. This won’t by itself help the candidates you prefer, but it will help maintain election security and put you in a position to more effectively counter claims that the election was rigged.
At what point is it no longer your party?