Biden signs order on abortion access, urges women to vote in November

[bver_hunter]

A Val said, nothing is close to being done. First there will be Reconciliation and the Senate Parliamentarian. Then Vote-a-Rama, then more shit. Then the House.

So no, there is no credit that to be given really.

It is a win-win situation for all, even the Canadians with this Bill being agreed on by Schumer - Manchin:

From Buy American to North American: Manchin-Schumer deal amends EV tax credits

From Buy American to North American: Manchin-Schumer deal amends EV tax credits

The existential crisis confronting Canada's automotive industry may finally be over. U.S. Democrats Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Joe Manchin have agreed to propose doing away with a tax-credit plan that favoured American-made electric vehicles.

www.ctvnews.ca

All it now requires is Butler to give it some credit......LOL!!

 

[Valcazar]

Ok, I believe he metaphorically promised a chicken in every pot and the New Deal did just that. In fact I'd say FDR exceeded his promises.

You argued that he got his huge majorities because he kept his promises as President.
What promises had he kept as President before he was President?

 

[Butler1000]

It is a win-win situation for all, even the Canadians with this Bill being agreed on by Schumer - Manchin:

From Buy American to North American: Manchin-Schumer deal amends EV tax credits

From Buy American to North American: Manchin-Schumer deal amends EV tax credits

The existential crisis confronting Canada's automotive industry may finally be over. U.S. Democrats Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Joe Manchin have agreed to propose doing away with a tax-credit plan that favoured American-made electric vehicles.

www.ctvnews.ca

All it now requires is Butler to give it some credit......LOL!!

Let us know when it passes. You don't get credit for things not done.

 

[Butler1000]

You argued that he got his huge majorities because he kept his promises as President.
What promises had he kept as President before he was President?

You do reaize he was elected four times? Why don't you explain why the people of the USA kept putting him in if he wasn't keeping promises.

Its really quite simple.

 

[Valcazar]

Let us know when it passes. You don't get credit for things not done.

We don't often agree, but here yes.
This bill isn't a law until it passes and is signed.
Spiking the football before then makes no sense.

You do reaize he was elected four times? Why don't you explain why the people of the USA kept putting him in if he wasn't keeping promises.

Its really quite simple.

It really is simple, which is why I'm confused you are having so much trouble with this.
I pointed out he had massive majorities with which to get things done.
You said he got them for keeping his promises.
I am pointing out that he hadn't kept any promises when he got his first win and those majorities.
He used those majorities to get the things done you say he then got rewarded for.

And we are talking HUGE majorities.
He had the Senate 58-37-1 (and that "1" was Farmer–Labor and basically supported the Democrats).
So that's 60% of the Senate. (Back then you needed 2/3 of Senators voting to overcome a filibuster, but of course filibustering was much, much rarer.)
He had the House 313-117-5 (and again, that "5" was Farmer-Labor), so 72% of the House.

You do understand that doing big things with those kinds of margins is a little different than doing them when your senate is 48-50-2 (2 independents signing with Democrats) and the House is 220-211, right?

 

[bver_hunter]

Let us know when it passes. You don't get credit for things not done.

butler, just convince your buddy Sanders not to oppose it in anyway, although he did not get all he wanted!!

 

[Valcazar]

butler, just convince your buddy Sanders not to oppose it in anyway, although he did not get all he wanted!!

That's not fair.
Sanders doesn't vote to tank bills if they advance the ball but don't get him everything he wants.
He's quite pragmatic about those kinds of votes.
The expected problem here is Sinema.

 

[Butler1000]

We don't often agree, but here yes.
This bill isn't a law until it passes and is signed.
Spiking the football before then makes no sense.



It really is simple, which is why I'm confused you are having so much trouble with this.
I pointed out he had massive majorities with which to get things done.
You said he got them for keeping his promises.
I am pointing out that he hadn't kept any promises when he got his first win and those majorities.
He used those majorities to get the things done you say he then got rewarded for.

And we are talking HUGE majorities.
He had the Senate 58-37-1 (and that "1" was Farmer–Labor and basically supported the Democrats).
So that's 60% of the Senate. (Back then you needed 2/3 of Senators voting to overcome a filibuster, but of course filibustering was much, much rarer.)
He had the House 313-117-5 (and again, that "5" was Farmer-Labor), so 72% of the House.

You do understand that doing big things with those kinds of margins is a little different than doing them when your senate is 48-50-2 (2 independents signing with Democrats) and the House is 220-211, right?

Funny how progressive policy gets you majorities eh? Its almost like if you stop pandering to donors you get more votes.

Kinda kills the whole we can't win in red states without conservatives as Democrats.

And once again stop nitpicking. He got his first majority(like Obama) with promises. He KEPT THEM with results.

 

[Valcazar]

Funny how progressive policy gets you majorities eh? Its almost like if you stop pandering to donors you get more votes.

Kinda kills the whole we can't win in red states without conservatives as Democrats.

And once again stop nitpicking. He got his first majority(like Obama) with promises. He KEPT THEM with results.

You're not really this dumb, right?
It's an act?

 

[Pleasure Hound]

Funny how progressive policy gets you majorities eh? Its almost like if you stop pandering to donors you get more votes.

Kinda kills the whole we can't win in red states without conservatives as Democrats.

And once again stop nitpicking. He got his first majority(like Obama) with promises. He KEPT THEM with results.

Yeah. Careful what you say there. Jimmy Carter tried the Progressive thing in the 1980 election. He lost.....bigly.....

 

[bver_hunter]

That's not fair.
Sanders doesn't vote to tank bills if they advance the ball but don't get him everything he wants.
He's quite pragmatic about those kinds of votes.
The expected problem here is Sinema.

Remember that Butler always stated that he was a "Sander's supporter". Hence this was stated in pure jest!!
Yes Sanders is known to support nearly all the Democratic Bills even if he is not fully satisfied with the compromise.
Sinema crafted the Prescription Reform Bill that is part of this package. Well, yes she still has not fully acknowledged her support for this package, and with the "vote-a-rama" provisions looming she could try to make further amendments that could infuriate Schumer and the Rest of the Democrats, including Sanders. But in the end it has the best chance of passing compared to a week ago when it seemed to be dead in the waters!!

 

[Valcazar]

Yes Sanders is known to support nearly all the Democratic Bills even if he is not fully satisfied with the compromise.

Like FDR, who compromised with the conservative Democrats all the time.

 

[Butler1000]

You're not really this dumb, right?
It's an act?

They aren't winning by much now are they?

 

[Butler1000]

Yeah. Careful what you say there. Jimmy Carter tried the Progressive thing in the 1980 election. He lost.....bigly.....

He lost because of the economy. And Hostage Crisis.

 

[Pleasure Hound]

He lost because of the economy. And Hostage Crisis.

Right. His progressive strategy didn't work because of those.....

 

[Butler1000]

Right. His progressive strategy didn't work because of those.....

Yo be honest he was a compromise pick coming on the heels of a bad presidency.....

Sound familiar?

 

[Valcazar]

They aren't winning by much now are they?

No.
So expecting them to accomplish what FDR was able to accomplish when he had super majorities in both houses seems silly.

 

[Butler1000]

No.
So expecting them to accomplish what FDR was able to accomplish when he had super majorities in both houses seems silly.

You are missing the point. As usual. If the Democrats promised and enacted progressive policy they would get them. Obama had it, on two promises. End the wars, and Medicare for All. Had they done it then they would have had more. Instead they went right wing.

So why trust them now to do the right thing? When the fail to do it when given the tools?

 

[squeezer]

Multiple Polls Show Republicans Could Be In For Nasty Shock In November

I'm shining up my dancing shoes

 

[Valcazar]

You are missing the point. As usual. If the Democrats promised and enacted progressive policy they would get them. Obama had it, on two promises. End the wars, and Medicare for All. Had they done it then they would have had more. Instead they went right wing.

So why trust them now to do the right thing? When the fail to do it when given the tools?

So you think FDR got his huge minorities by breaking his promise of Universal Health Care?