LogFAQs > #939056201

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 296: "Needless Suffering and Death"
ChaosTonyV4 05/12/20 7:41:13 PM #42:	Inviso posted... Take this statement and apply it to voting for Hillary Clinton/Joe Biden over Donald Trump, rather than bitching about them not being good enough, and I think you ALMOST understand why centrists/moderates get frustrated with you. https://www.iol.co.za/technology/worlds-longest-arms-in-good-use-307542 You might want to hit up Guinness with that record-breaking reach. xp1337 posted... Yeah, red's point is well taken IMO. It's possible the Democrats could have extracted a better final bill if they decided to engage in brinksmanship or entered a more protracted negotiation phase where they opened much higher and both sides had to make trades, etc. That's true. It's by no means a guarantee and to be perfectly honest, with how openly shameless McConnell is I actually have my doubts it really would succeed at all, I have almost zero doubt he'd be willing to just let people suffer by deadlocking the thing. However, all these avenues would require time, and that is not a luxury the people most suffering and in need of relief have. That the Republicans seemingly have no compassion for these people tilts the negotiating table way in their favor because Democrats realize they don't have the time to wage an ideological battle here because even if they can win it there's preventable suffering happening if they go that route. Ok but as I already addressed, literal Republicans such as Tom Cotton offered more than what the Democrats compromised to. My entire point is that they didn't even try. Everybody knew, in this topic, in the media, everywhere, that the initial volley of stimulus was likely to be the only chance for anything of substance that could actually get to the people. Democrats chose a short-term, short-sighted solution over something that would actually solve the issue. Is it possible more people would have suffered if they delayed a few days? Sure! It's possible. But right now it's an absolutely certainty that people are suffering and need help. Help that is extremely unlikely to arrive. --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado <cite>ChaosTonyV4 posted [p:939056201] in Politics C... [t:78681603]...</cite> <quote>Inviso posted... </cite> <quote>Take this statement and apply it to voting for Hillary Clinton/Joe Biden over Donald Trump, rather than bitching about them not being good enough, and I think you ALMOST understand why centrists/moderates get frustrated with you.</quote> https://www.iol.co.za/technology/worlds-longest-arms-in-good-use-307542 You might want to hit up Guinness with that record-breaking reach. xp1337 posted... </cite> <quote>Yeah, red's point is well taken IMO. It's possible the Democrats could have extracted a better final bill if they decided to engage in brinksmanship or entered a more protracted negotiation phase where they opened much higher and both sides had to make trades, etc. That's true. It's by no means a guarantee and to be perfectly honest, with how openly shameless McConnell is I actually have my doubts it really would succeed at all, I have almost zero doubt he'd be willing to just let people suffer by deadlocking the thing. However, all these avenues would require time, and that is not a luxury the people most suffering and in need of relief have. That the Republicans seemingly have no compassion for these people tilts the negotiating table way in their favor because Democrats realize they don't have the time to wage an ideological battle here because even if they can win it there's preventable suffering happening if they go that route.</quote> Ok but as I already addressed, literal Republicans such as Tom Cotton offered more than what the Democrats compromised to. My entire point is that they didn't even try. Everybody knew, in this topic, in the media, everywhere, that the initial volley of stimulus was likely to be the only chance for anything of substance that could actually get to the people. Democrats chose a short-term, short-sighted solution over something that would actually solve the issue. Is it possible more people would have suffered if they delayed a few days? Sure! It's possible. But right now it's an absolutely certainty that people are suffering and need help. Help that is extremely unlikely to arrive. --- Phantom Dust. "I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1