-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
So you don’t have an answer either.
Got it.
@ramases2112 absolutely nothing in my post indicates I am in any way upset.
I asked a question...a polite question at that...and all you and GB can offer is “dur...dur...dur...Democrats...last four years”.
It looks like four more years of Mitchie and the boys doing their best to ensure Biden is a one term President (sounds familiar). It takes two sides to compromise. I don’t think either side is particularly interested.
Got it.
@ramases2112 absolutely nothing in my post indicates I am in any way upset.
I asked a question...a polite question at that...and all you and GB can offer is “dur...dur...dur...Democrats...last four years”.
It looks like four more years of Mitchie and the boys doing their best to ensure Biden is a one term President (sounds familiar). It takes two sides to compromise. I don’t think either side is particularly interested.
Last edited:
-
1
- Show all
There is public support both left and right for stimulus checks, it was all the leftwing pork shoved into the current bill (and then removed by parliamentarian due to reconciliation rules).
A straight up covid relief bill would have had a lot of bipartisan support. There would have been debate on the numbers, but there was support. We ended up in budget reconciliation because Dems wanted more than just stimulus.
A straight up covid relief bill would have had a lot of bipartisan support. There would have been debate on the numbers, but there was support. We ended up in budget reconciliation because Dems wanted more than just stimulus.
-
1
- Show all
Fair enough. Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable response.
What you call leftwing pork, others would call necessary and important stimulus and relief. IMO, vowing to filibuster anything other than stimulus checks also is not in the spirit of cooperation and compromise...bipartisanship. IMO, he attempted bipartisanship in obtaining the other forms of relief. He got a firm no, no cooperation, no discussion response, and then tried reconciliation.
Bipartisanship requires that both partisan groups compromise. Bipartisanship isn't just giving up and taking just what one minority partisan group will allow and wants. When he received no indication of cooperation or compromise on what you call leftwing pork (and others call necessary and important relief), he acted accordingly. The President, no matter who he or she may be, cannot engage in bipartisanship if the other partisan group is not interested in engaging in the hard work of compromise and negotiation.
I'm not into trying to blame or call out either or our two primary parties for the failure to engage in bipartisanship. For way too long, neither of them have been interested in bipartisanship in Congress. Until they get their House (and Senate) in order on that, there is very little the President is going to be able to do.
What you call leftwing pork, others would call necessary and important stimulus and relief. IMO, vowing to filibuster anything other than stimulus checks also is not in the spirit of cooperation and compromise...bipartisanship. IMO, he attempted bipartisanship in obtaining the other forms of relief. He got a firm no, no cooperation, no discussion response, and then tried reconciliation.
Bipartisanship requires that both partisan groups compromise. Bipartisanship isn't just giving up and taking just what one minority partisan group will allow and wants. When he received no indication of cooperation or compromise on what you call leftwing pork (and others call necessary and important relief), he acted accordingly. The President, no matter who he or she may be, cannot engage in bipartisanship if the other partisan group is not interested in engaging in the hard work of compromise and negotiation.
I'm not into trying to blame or call out either or our two primary parties for the failure to engage in bipartisanship. For way too long, neither of them have been interested in bipartisanship in Congress. Until they get their House (and Senate) in order on that, there is very little the President is going to be able to do.
This is not how I remember it at all. Biden said SPEED was key. Not compromise. When the GOPers balked at the amount of pork*, he moved to budget reconciliation almost IMMEDIATELY, and the parliamentarian smacked them down. (pork = historic democrat priorities - like minimum wage - that are not directly related to covid) There was no attempt to deal - which is part of compromise. He knew he could get most of what he wanted on straight party vote having effectively both chambers and he okayed it. Bipartisanship is only necessary, when you don't have the power to get your way.
There was pretty good support on COVID relief/stimulus. When Dems put forth the pork in the House, and GOP (both senate and house) both said "yeah - no", he didn't hesitate. No debate. Just went to reconciliation. Not even attempting to cut the pork to get bipartisanship.
There was pretty good support on COVID relief/stimulus. When Dems put forth the pork in the House, and GOP (both senate and house) both said "yeah - no", he didn't hesitate. No debate. Just went to reconciliation. Not even attempting to cut the pork to get bipartisanship.
We obviously have different views on both the pork/valid relief issue.
We seem to agree that both GOP contingents in Senate and House clearly immediately said no to anything other than stimulus checks....indicating no interest in attempting to deal or compromise on those issues.
We definitely seem to disagree on whether or not either party is showing interest in bipartisanship. You seem to think only one side is showing that interest. I think neither one is, or has, shown any interest in bipartisanship.
Good talk.
We seem to agree that both GOP contingents in Senate and House clearly immediately said no to anything other than stimulus checks....indicating no interest in attempting to deal or compromise on those issues.
We definitely seem to disagree on whether or not either party is showing interest in bipartisanship. You seem to think only one side is showing that interest. I think neither one is, or has, shown any interest in bipartisanship.
Good talk.
I think the Dems (as they are power) had the burden to reach out -if they actually gave two craps about bipartisanship. Saying "take it or leave it, because we have to go fast" isn't a good faith effort. They can go it alone so they don't even have to try.
For expediency, they chose to go it alone rather than get all wound up and bogged down in "compromise" and "governing from the center"
republicans are just as bad when they are in power. I agree neither seem to have interest, but pinning THIS one on GOPer doesn't seem to be appropriate.
For expediency, they chose to go it alone rather than get all wound up and bogged down in "compromise" and "governing from the center"
republicans are just as bad when they are in power. I agree neither seem to have interest, but pinning THIS one on GOPer doesn't seem to be appropriate.
Whereas I think if the Dems are told by the Republicans in the Senate "we're not going to take any of your (by R definition) "pork"...Hard NO on "Democratic pork" (which they did) when the Senate has the filibuster, there is no other option but to try the reconciliation process.
I do not see it as "expediency" at all at that point. Republicans made it clear that some things were non-negotiable....they weren't interested....so Biden and the Dems tried (unsuccessfully, I'll point out) to go the reconciliation route on those items the Republican minority in the Senate wanted nothing to do with.
So we disagree.
Which is completely fine.
I do not see it as "expediency" at all at that point. Republicans made it clear that some things were non-negotiable....they weren't interested....so Biden and the Dems tried (unsuccessfully, I'll point out) to go the reconciliation route on those items the Republican minority in the Senate wanted nothing to do with.
So we disagree.
Which is completely fine.
That isn't what happened. The Dems presented the deal as a take it or leave it "for bipartisanship", otherwise they were just going to do it through budget reconciliation for SPEED. That procedure was public prior to the deal evening being proposed or formulated. When you present your position up front as we are doing this with or without you (which the Dems did - and they had the votes to do so) - it ain't negotiation nor is it compromise. If I were offered an unfavorable "deal" under the same conditions, I wouldn't be interested (and I would assume most reasonable people wouldn't be interested also). There was no offer of a deal in good faith.
We disagree.
And that is perfectly fine.
Do you think further discussion of your interpretation of what happened is going to convince me that you are right?
Do you think further discuss of my interpretation of what happened is going to convince you that I am right?
Or has this now become a "last word" wins type of thing?
We disagree.
And that is perfectly fine.
And that is perfectly fine.
Do you think further discussion of your interpretation of what happened is going to convince me that you are right?
Do you think further discuss of my interpretation of what happened is going to convince you that I am right?
Or has this now become a "last word" wins type of thing?
We disagree.
And that is perfectly fine.
-
1
- Show all
