Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 350: TIME's Topic of the Year

(+) Yeah! (+)

She absolutely needed to take the first deal because the alternative was a bunch of people immediately homeless.

The idea that she had some sort of extra leverage is false.

God I fucking hate Mitch McConnell.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Yeah, I agree Pelosi should've said yes, but that still would've been where it ended because McConnell would've just said "We've got this great bill I came up with we're going with instead" and then when Dems refused that Trump and Repubs would've went "See Dems don't want it!"

everything being said after her saying yes is conjecture and assumptions. we don't have proof of a Kentucky that voted on a McConnel who voted down/refused to floor a 1.8 trillion deal. same for all the other senators. what we do have is proof of a house that lost double digit seats. we don't agree on what would've happened and there isn't any way to really prove it on either said, though i think we can agree there'd be differences in the aftermath. though the specifics o that, probably not - i'd see the GOP lose the senate, the Dems keep more of the house, Dems win a few more states, but Trump win.

the only position that anybody can definitively argue is on whether she should've taken the deal or not.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

The Senate is literally Republican controlled with a Republican majority.

What the hell are you even talking about.

It takes 60 votes in the Senate. Only a majority in the house. Learn your government.

For real.

---

As somebody who lived in Kentucky, I can tell you McConnell was not losing, period. They literally do not care what he does because he has an R next to his name. They hate the guy but still vote for him anyway. They're not ignorant. They're aware of the things he does/doesn't do. They just do. Not. Care. If you believe McConnell would have lost for refusing to floor the bill, I've got a lot of bridges to sell ya. There's a reason he wasn't at all even hesitant to openly say he wasn't going to bring it to the floor.

---

Now, to be fair, it wasn't just because he knew he wasn't going to lose. It was also because he knew Trump is a child who would've forgot all about it as soon as he dangled a new set of keys in front of him, no matter how small. That's what his bad faith bill was all about.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Second, he flat out said "The WH deal isn't being brought to the floor" openly because he was going to push his own bad faith terrible bill.

This is 100% a lie btw.

---

MitchyMc is one of the worst human beings currently alive.

In a less notable but just strangely baffling anecdote,

https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1339222327486083077?s=19

---

Wanglicious posted...

everything being said after her saying yes is conjecture and assumptions. we don't have proof of a Kentucky that voted on a McConnel who voted down/refused to floor a 1.8 trillion deal. same for all the other senators. what we do have is proof of a house that lost double digit seats. we don't agree on what would've happened and there isn't any way to really prove it on either said, though i think we can agree there'd be differences in the aftermath. though the specifics o that, probably not - i'd see the GOP lose the senate, the Dems keep more of the house, Dems win a few more states, but Trump win.

the only position that anybody can definitively argue is on whether she should've taken the deal or not.

It's important to make those assumptions, because the effectiveness of Pelosi's actions then depend on McConnell's actions. Let's say Pelosi took the deal. My assumption, based on McConnell's past actions and the fact that, win or lose, the Senate is designed in a way that benefits the Republicans, is that McConnell refuses to even discuss the bill, and at best insists on his meager stimulus that was already deemed unacceptable. In this case, McConnell is unlikely to get any blowback, and the other Senate races are safe because none of them have to be on the record as voting against Trump's stimulus, thanks to Mitch. Meanwhile, Pelosi looks weak for "caving" and we wind up with the same scenario we're in now, with people upset at her for being a weak leader.

The problem is entirely that our government system benefits the minority of the population that supports a party for whom accomplishing NOTHING is the end goal of their empowerment. There is nothing about the actions of the GOP for the past 12 years that makes me think I'm wrong in this assessment.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

She absolutely needed to take the first deal because the alternative was a bunch of people immediately homeless.

The idea that she had some sort of extra leverage is false.

It's not that she had "extra," it's that Dems went from having any leverage to having zero.

Let me put it this way. With hindsight, if you know we would get ONE deal for the entire year, possibly two at the very end of december, do you accept the original one or fight to make it better?

(And yes this hypothetical is in hindsight but it's her job to be able to predict these things and people at the time were saying the deal needed to be better to avoid a disaster)

---

They could have went back and got anything they wanted after the election if it was going to go the way they thought. They were so worried about making Trump lose instead of about getting what they could for people now.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Let me put it this way. With hindsight, if you know we would get ONE deal for the entire year, possibly two at the very end of december, do you accept the original one or fight to make it better

In that scenario it's obvious that you fight to make the original deal better, but that's not the situation the Dems were in. Their choices were more like "take this deal or get nothing", and no deal at all would have had some awful consequences. Or are you saying this was the best time to finally test whether the GOP is bluffing or not whenever they hold America hostage during political negotiations?
---

Xeybozn posted...

In that scenario it's obvious that you fight to make the original deal better, but that's not the situation the Dems were in. Their choices were more like "take this deal or get nothing", and no deal at all would have had some awful consequences. Or are you saying this was the best time to finally test whether the GOP is bluffing or not whenever they hold America hostage during political negotiations?

Not necessarily time to call the bluff and get nothing, but if there was ever a time to play dirty to get what they wanted it was then. I'm not saying the GOP isn't culpable but that we can definitively say that the Dem's plan to compromise first and release more aid later was a complete failure.

---

It takes a lot of gall to pretend to be offended at this after four years of excusing all of Trumps shit!

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1339375759677411328?s=21

(also they absolutely are a bunch of fuckers)

---

Lmao oh shit, I was reading a tweet about favorability ratings and I just realized what Rock actually blocked me for.

Just LAST WEEK we argued about favorability ratings, and I called him out for cherrypicking the sixth result for favorability rating to try to prove a point that Bernie is unpopular, after Id JUST shared every top result for Bernie popularity

---

He didnt re-block me MONTHS later over RBG, he blocked me because I caught him lying, and hes lying about why he did it, lmao I know this is petty, but it didnt sit right with me so @UshiromiyaEva Ill accept your apology now.

---

Bruh
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

It's not that she had "extra," it's that Dems went from having any leverage to having zero.

Ok, lets take the leverage out then.

The Democrats basically had no leverage unless they were willing to fuck their own constituents that were literally facing immediate homelessness and hunger.

---

Tony.

Maybe you should take a break.

---

Im about to head to bed, Ill just accept that as your apology. Rock lied and brought that RBG shit up again to cover that he said Bernie was unpopular and got owned.

/topic.php?id=79146870&page=4 if anyone is interested.


---

Bruh

---

I don't know how off the rails Tony is getting right now but I guess that made the right call.

---

He is still going off about you blocking him.

It's literally just a bunch of posts about that.


---

LordoftheMorons posted...

It takes a lot of gall to pretend to be offended at this after four years of excusing all of Trumps shit!

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1339375759677411328?s=21

(also they absolutely are a bunch of fuckers)

Has Trump ever used the F word publicly? Has he used expletives at all? I don't think so!

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

He is still going off about you blocking him.

It's literally just a bunch of posts about that.

Literally Obseseed

---

It's starting to get a very "stalker-ex" vibe to it.

---

red13n posted...

Ok, lets take the leverage out then.

The Democrats basically had no leverage unless they were willing to fuck their own constituents that were literally facing immediate homelessness and hunger.

Yes, and the GOP is willing to do this. You know this. The Democrats know this. They will never win if they keep letting the GOP use their constituents as a human shield and they should call that out explicitly.

---

They do call it out. We just have a country of idiots who think it's same thing both sides.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Has Trump ever used the F word publicly? Has he used expletives at all? I don't think so!

I'm not gonna say it isn't on brand for Americans to think saying fuck is much worse than physically mocking disabled people live on stage during a rally.

It's kind of a terrible nation like that. Almost half of our representatives are fuckers, after all!

---

TheRock1525 posted...

They do call it out. We just have a country of idiots who think it's same thing both sides.

I mean thats why we need different leadership that doesn't suck ass at talking to these "idiots" and can actually take action to help them. This isn't hard!

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

I'm not gonna say it isn't on brand for Americans to think saying fuck is much worse than physically mocking disabled people live on stage during a rally.

It's kind of a terrible nation like that. Almost half of our representatives are fuckers, after all!

Facebook factcheckers deem this to be inconclusive. Let us tell you why.

---

You have no idea how much of the country just rolls their eyes at any sort of squabble no matter who's truly at fault. You can argue it's a messaging issue all you want but people are super sick of politics. And when you combine that with the polarization of this country then that means that people are either very dug-in or very indifferent.

---

You're not going to get anywhere as long as you believe people are "idiots" or evil. You need to be able to put yourself in another person's shoes. Biden is actually fairly good at this.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Yes, and the GOP is willing to do this. You know this. The Democrats know this. They will never win if they keep letting the GOP use their constituents as a human shield and they should call that out explicitly.

Yes, we know the GOP is willing to do this.

This is why Democrats had no leverage. They correctly are not willing to do that.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

You have no idea how much of the country just rolls their eyes at any sort of squabble no matter who's truly at fault. You can argue it's a messaging issue all you want but people are super sick of politics. And when you combine that with the polarization of this country then that means that people are either very dug-in or very indifferent.

Okay then you need stuff that's actionable

Like giving them a check every month and making sure they know you're the ones that did it

They won't care how you get it done, since they are sick of politics

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Okay then you need stuff that's actionable

Like giving them a check every month and making sure they know you're the ones that did it

They won't care how you get it done, since they are sick of politics

They'll assume the check is coming from whoever they already want the check to come from.

---

Inviso posted...

They'll assume the check is coming from whoever they already want the check to come from.

But we've already established that helping people is better than not helping them for political benefit

I'm arguing they should do whatever it takes to help more, and I suspect it will still be a political benefit, although you guys disagree

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

But we've already established that helping people is better than not helping them for political benefit

I'm arguing they should do whatever it takes to help more, and I suspect it will still be a political benefit, although you guys disagree

I mean they went and got got them all $1,200 checks and they proceeded to not only not win the Senate but also lose seats in the House. And keep in mind during the pandemic the house kept passing stimulus bills.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

I mean they went and got got them all $1,200 checks and they proceeded to not only not win the Senate but also lose seats in the House. And keep in mind during the pandemic the house kept passing stimulus bills.

the ones passed on a bipartisan basis and were signed by President Trump?

I'm not even meming with this - Trump was basically allowed to take most of the credit without a fight. We all know the details but he got to count it as his win.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

But we've already established that helping people is better than not helping them for political benefit

I'm arguing they should do whatever it takes to help more, and I suspect it will still be a political benefit, although you guys disagree

The problem is that one side wants to help and the other side doesn't, and when an agreement can't be reached, that benefits the side that doesn't want to help. So whenever the Dems concede ground and reduce their demands in order to compromise, the GOP become more obstinate, resulting in the Dems being even weaker when it comes to helping people the next time around. This is exactly what happened. The Dems went for a weak stimulus deal to help people back when the pandemic started, but because it was such a weak deal, it meant that when renewal was needed in the summertime, the GOP could continue not giving a shit. And then the GOP gained seats in the House and held the Senate because the voters don't give a fuck about which side is hurting them.

That's the problem. As long as the Democratic majority can't be bothered to turn out in a blue fucking wave to wipe out the ENTIRE GOP (not just Donald Trump), this is the reality we live in.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Okay then you need stuff that's actionable

Like giving them a check every month and making sure they know you're the ones that did it

They won't care how you get it done, since they are sick of politics

And where are these magical checks coming from? It can't be from the government, as we all know that the GOP would never let that happen. Are you expecting wealthy Democrats to privately fund and run a UBI program?
---

Xeybozn posted...

Are you expecting wealthy Democrats to privately fund and run a UBI program?

Honestly this is a better idea than throwing money at the fuckin Lincoln Project

---

Inviso posted...

The problem is that one side wants to help and the other side doesn't, and when an agreement can't be reached, that benefits the side that doesn't want to help. So whenever the Dems concede ground and reduce their demands in order to compromise, the GOP become more obstinate, resulting in the Dems being even weaker when it comes to helping people the next time around. This is exactly what happened. The Dems went for a weak stimulus deal to help people back when the pandemic started, but because it was such a weak deal, it meant that when renewal was needed in the summertime, the GOP could continue not giving a shit. And then the GOP gained seats in the House and held the Senate because the voters don't give a fuck about which side is hurting them.

That's the problem. As long as the Democratic majority can't be bothered to turn out in a blue fucking wave to wipe out the ENTIRE GOP (not just Donald Trump), this is the reality we live in.

I know how it works, I'm saying the stalemate never gets broken if Dems also don't play hardball with whatever power they do have. Republicans have been doing all kinds of crazy stunts these past two years with zero blowback. Not just with stupid lawsuits but also that shit like when they would physically show up outside of important hearings to impede them by protesting and shit. If this kind of crap is what's actually working on "the idiots" to win them over then they should go for it. I don't care anymore.

Like be honest, how would you react if Pelosi just waltzed in during the ACB confirmation and just started screaming her head off like Republicans did for the impeachment hearings?

---

Xeybozn posted...

And where are these magical checks coming from? It can't be from the government, as we all know that the GOP would never let that happen. Are you expecting wealthy Democrats to privately fund and run a UBI program?

I dunno, maybe Bloomberg's on board if we give him a cabinet spot

(I am memeing on this one)

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I know how it works, I'm saying the stalemate never gets broken if Dems also don't play hardball with whatever power they do have. Republicans have been doing all kinds of crazy stunts these past two years with zero blowback. Not just with stupid lawsuits but also that shit like when they would physically show up outside of important hearings to impede them by protesting and shit. If this kind of crap is what's actually working on "the idiots" to win them over then they should go for it. I don't care anymore.

Like be honest, how would you react if Pelosi just waltzed in during the ACB confirmation and just started screaming her head off like Republicans did for the impeachment hearings?

I'd be happy.

And then sad when the majority of voters took offense to what she did and voted Republican because they're held to a lower standard than Democrats are.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I dunno, maybe Bloomberg's on board if we give him a cabinet spot

(I am memeing on this one)

Yes, if these people want it they should pay for it. With their own money, not other people's money.

---

Inviso posted...

I'd be happy.

And then sad when the majority of voters took offense to what she did and voted Republican because they're held to a lower standard than Democrats are.

but what about the other voters it makes happy

I'll fully admit that my theory here is that "people like Republicans because they are seen doing shit constantly, even when it is the dumbest shit"

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

but what about the other voters it makes happy

I'll fully admit that my theory here is that "people like Republicans because they are seen doing shit constantly, even when it is the dumbest shit"

Those voters won't be happy when they lose the election.

---

But its been shown consistently that voters arent happy when Dems act like they usually do and they also arent happy when Dems use Republican tactics.

https://twitter.com/arthurdelaneyhp/status/1339255542573916161?s=21

This is just stupid

---