Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Maji

Biden Policy Agenda Thread

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Doubt he’s changing.

 

B7015186-A23A-4522-8ED3-4B729A9292D3.jpeg

579DDDE8-11D3-496C-8C6A-1011F61B4B5B.jpeg

He backpedaled pretty quickly on the “no $2,000 checks” stance. Think he “clarified” his position that same day after receiving backlash. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SalinasSpartan said:

He backpedaled pretty quickly on the “no $2,000 checks” stance. Think he “clarified” his position that same day after receiving backlash. 

Yeah,  I am sure no checks plays great in WV

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Akkula said:

You must still think Trump won the election.   We are doing open borders  anchor babies and socialism

What is anchor babies, comrade? 

EDIT: I googled it, NM. 

There are only two things I can't stand in this world: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, madmartigan said:

What is anchor babies, comrade? 

EDIT: I googled it, NM. 

Ending the drug war and decriminalizing marijuana are further up on the priority list to deal with border issues than doing border interdictions and walls.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Doubt he’s changing.

 

B7015186-A23A-4522-8ED3-4B729A9292D3.jpeg

579DDDE8-11D3-496C-8C6A-1011F61B4B5B.jpeg

Noticed that the other day. I suspect Manchin will cave on some things in return for spending in WV. I doubt Manchin will nuke the filibuster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Maji said:

Noticed that the other day. I suspect Manchin will cave on some things in return for spending in WV. I doubt Manchin will nuke the filibuster

I’d lean towards him not supporting ending the filibuster, but if he did he would hold a hell of a lot more power. A lot has been made of him being the 50th vote, but as it stands that will matter exactly 3 times the next two years, that’s it. Other then those three reconciliation votes he’s just another Senator. The 50th vote means nothing when you need 60. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maji said:

Noticed that the other day. I suspect Manchin will cave on some things in return for spending in WV. I doubt Manchin will nuke the filibuster

The filibuster serves him as much as it serves anyone. He gets to be the hero Democrat that gets legislation over the line and when there is something too far for his voters he doesn’t have to be put in that position. It’s on those damn obstructionist Republicans.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The filibuster serves him as much as it serves anyone. He gets to be the hero Democrat that gets legislation over the line and when there is something too far for his voters he doesn’t have to be put in that position. It’s on those damn obstructionist Republicans.

Do you like the filibuster in its current form? By that I mean where people don’t actually end up having to filibuster and a Senator simply saying they will filibuster keeps a bill from coming to the floor. Seems like all this does is shield Senators from accountability by letting them stop bills without having to come to the Senate floor and explain why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Do you like the filibuster in its current form? By that I mean where people don’t actually end up having to filibuster and a Senator simply saying they will filibuster keeps a bill from coming to the floor. Seems like all this does is shield Senators from accountability by letting them stop bills without having to come to the Senate floor and explain why. 

Because it forces compromise. It’s not that complicated. Alternating majorities every few years steamrolling things pushed through by slim majorities would be awful. Look at the house, it’s a cluster+++++. Making both chambers like it would be not be an improvement.

And no, I don’t find any value in having the douchebags actually stand up and blather endlessly to perform a filibuster. Getting to 60 is fine with me.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Akkula said:

Ending the drug war and decriminalizing marijuana are further up on the priority list to deal with border issues than doing border interdictions and walls.

Best way to deal with border issues is to invest in Central American prosperity.  Really, it's that +++++ing simple.  We did it with Mexico and now have net 0 immigration, legal or otherwise.

Take some manufacturing out of China and give it to Africa and Central America.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Do you like the filibuster in its current form? By that I mean where people don’t actually end up having to filibuster and a Senator simply saying they will filibuster keeps a bill from coming to the floor. Seems like all this does is shield Senators from accountability by letting them stop bills without having to come to the Senate floor and explain why. 

 

The filibuster is a moderating tool.  It should be cherished by all.  Or every 2-4 years it becomes a game of exacting the most revenge possible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

The filibuster is a moderating tool.  It should be cherished by all.  Or every 2-4 years it becomes a game of exacting the most revenge possible.

 

Meh, I don’t cherish it at all. Historically it was just a tool to stop civil rights legislation. And generally speaking I just don’t see why we should have a super majority for legislation. It doesn’t encourage compromise, it encourages inaction. Thank god this Congress has 3 reconciliation silver bullets so they can get some shit done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Meh, I don’t cherish it at all. Historically it was just a tool to stop civil rights legislation. And generally speaking I just don’t see why we should have a super majority for legislation. It doesn’t encourage compromise, it encourages nothing to get done. Thank god this Congress has 3 reconciliation silver bullets. 

I mean that is just not accurate.  The filibuster dates back to Burr and Quincy Adams (even though it was not called that)  It was thus used by the Whigs in the 1840's and by both democrats and whigs 5 years later to block banking legislation.

It was used to prevent the Missouri compromise, which I guess is what you are getting at?

Tools can be used for good or bad depending on the political capital invested in them.  The Filibuster right now is used as a moderating tool.  That is a good thing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Because it forces compromise. It’s not that complicated. Alternating majorities every few years steamrolling things pushed through by slim majorities would be awful. Look at the house, it’s a cluster+++++. Making both chambers like it would be not be an improvement.

And no, I don’t find any value in having the douchebags actually stand up and blather endlessly to perform a filibuster. Getting to 60 is fine with me.

Actually it doesn’t force compromise.  Name the last piece of bi-partisan legislation.  What it does do is increase the power of special interests to buy off the Senator they need to stop legislation.   
 

If you think the swamp exists then realize the filibuster in its current form is a huge contributor to it.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I’m guessing most who qualify don’t have a financial advisor.  

When I was younger and running with a bad crowd, I saw women who viewed children as income.  They usually kept the income and peddled the kids off.

Not sure that is pertinent here, but in lower socioeconomic groups kids are certainly viewed as income, and this will just make it worse.  

UBI is the answer.  Same amount for everybody.  Period.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

When I was younger and running with a bad crowd, I saw women who viewed children as income.  They usually kept the income and peddled the kids off.

Not sure that is pertinent here, but in lower socioeconomic groups kids are certainly viewed as income, and this will just make it worse.  

UBI is the answer.  Same amount for everybody.  Period.

 

That may well be true and unintended consequences should clearly be thought through.   But my point they likely don’t have a financial advisor would still be correct.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

That may well be true and unintended consequences should clearly be thought through.   But my point they likely don’t have a financial advisor would still be correct.   

They don't.  They don't need a financial advisor to know that 1 kid helps, 2 kids helps more and 3 kids means you don't have to work and can live in poverty while feeding addiction.  

No middle class woman will look at kids as a means to make more money.  Lots and lots of poverty class will and do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...