Voter Suppression efforts in full swing









howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,566
Reaction score
15,217
Points
113
Of course. But just this once. There certainly won’t be any whining on the left when president DeSantis bypasses the filibuster for right wing wish list items. Keep going guys, you are hastening the divorce we need.
Turtle Mitch will do that for the next GQP President no matter what Dems do now. That's a hollow threat.
 





Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,518
Reaction score
5,531
Points
113
This is beautiful.

Some Republicans Fear Tighter Election Rules Could Boomerang on the Party
In Michigan, GOP officials are cautioning against tougher absentee voting laws, in part because it might discourage their own voters from casting ballots
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
31,162
Reaction score
8,067
Points
113
you are hastening the divorce we need.
Even if we break up into 50 countries, not a single one of them will be anywhere close to libertarianism, let alone the anarcho-capitalism you masturbate to.


If you had the balls to admit your ideology isn't a fraud, you'd move to Somalia. But of course you don't.
 





KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,759
Reaction score
3,854
Points
113
Turtle Mitch will do that for the next GQP President no matter what Dems do now. That's a hollow threat.
Why can’t the Democrats do what they want to do right now? You said Republicans had complete control when they had the WH and Congressional majorities. Funny how you change depending on who is in “control”.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,566
Reaction score
15,217
Points
113
Why can’t the Democrats do what they want to do right now? You said Republicans had complete control when they had the WH and Congressional majorities. Funny how you change depending on who is in “control”.
They could. If Joe Manchin wasn't 49.9% Republican...and Krysten Sinema wasn't....whatever she is.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,518
Reaction score
5,531
Points
113

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,566
Reaction score
15,217
Points
113

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,518
Reaction score
5,531
Points
113

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,566
Reaction score
15,217
Points
113

In deep red West Virginia, Biden’s $3.5tn spending proposal is immensely popular​

If he just want to negotiate the price down, fine. They don't need to make these things "permanent". Let them sunset in 2025 and the GQP campaign on taking away child tax credits and free community college etc. That'll be a real winner.
 



KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,759
Reaction score
3,854
Points
113
They could. If Joe Manchin wasn't 49.9% Republican...and Krysten Sinema wasn't....whatever she is.
No, they couldn’t. Only through reconciliation if some Democrats didn’t defect. And that’s only for budgetary legislation. You said Republicans could do whatever they wanted to do.

You act like Republicans are monolithic when they aren’t either. So they can’t do whatever “they” want to do.

Now that it’s Democrats stopping Democrats, you aren’t such a big talker about the majority’s ability to pass legislation.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,518
Reaction score
5,531
Points
113
No, they couldn’t. Only through reconciliation if some Democrats didn’t defect. And that’s only for budgetary legislation. You said Republicans could do whatever they wanted to do.

You act like Republicans are monolithic when they aren’t either. So they can’t do whatever “they” want to do.

Now that it’s Democrats stopping Democrats, you aren’t such a big talker about the majority’s ability.
With enough gerrymandering this will cease.
 

kg21

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
2,926
Reaction score
1,292
Points
113
No, they couldn’t. Only through reconciliation if some Democrats didn’t defect. And that’s only for budgetary legislation. You said Republicans could do whatever they wanted to do.

You act like Republicans are monolithic when they aren’t either. So they can’t do whatever “they” want to do.

Now that it’s Democrats stopping Democrats, you aren’t such a big talker about the majority’s ability.
oh, it's different this time for sure, Killer! No doubt about it.

You ever notice how it's always different now?
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,566
Reaction score
15,217
Points
113
No, they couldn’t. Only through reconciliation if some Democrats didn’t defect. And that’s only for budgetary legislation. You said Republicans could do whatever they wanted to do.

You act like Republicans are monolithic when they aren’t either. So they can’t do whatever “they” want to do.

Now that it’s Democrats stopping Democrats, you aren’t such a big talker about the majority’s ability to pass legislation.
All I said was that Mitch didn't get rid of the filibuster from 2016-2018 because he didn't need to. They could gut the ACA without it but they couldn't even get 50 votes. They could give the wealthy a huge tax cut, cut zero spending and run up massive deficits (as small government R's do) with reconciliation. And they gave themselves an exemption for SCOTUS judges. Those are the only things they cared about.

If the filibuster had blocked something near and dear, they'd have gotten rid of it or least tried to. What's stopping the Dems is they only have 50 votes and at least 2 of them are opposed. Would 3 + R's have stopped Mitch? I doubt it, but we'll never know.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,759
Reaction score
3,854
Points
113
All I said was that Mitch didn't get rid of the filibuster from 2016-2018 because he didn't need to. They could gut the ACA without it but they couldn't even get 50 votes. They could give the wealthy a huge tax cut, cut zero spending and run up massive deficits with reconciliation. And they gave themselves an exemption for SCOTUS judges. Those are the only things they cared about. If the filibuster had blocked something near and dear, they'd have gotten rid of it. As the Dems would if Manchin etc. would let them.
No, they wouldn’t get rid of the filibuster.

Republicans are generally conservative. Conservatives tend to prefer the status quo and refrain from significant changes, which opens the door to bigger government. Government rarely gets smaller. It’s lefties that are always angling to increase their power and decrease the power of their Republican counterparts so that they can dictate to the American public.

The US government was designed to make change occur slowly and be negotiated. Lefties hate negotiating b/c it slows their big government agenda.

This reconciliation bill situation is no different than the Republicans had in killing Obamacare. You just won’t admit that your view was intellectually defective and that politics within a party are difficult to manage.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,566
Reaction score
15,217
Points
113
No, they wouldn’t get rid of the filibuster.

Republicans are generally conservative. Conservatives tend to prefer the status quo and refrain from significant changes, which opens the door to bigger government. Government rarely gets smaller. It’s lefties that are always angling to increase their power and decrease the power of their Republican counterparts so that they can dictate to the American public.

The US government was designed to make change occur slowly and be negotiated. Lefties hate negotiating b/c it slows their big government agenda.

This reconciliation bill situation is no different than the Republicans had in killing Obamacare. You just won’t admit that your view was intellectually defective and that politics within a party are difficult to manage.
Trumpism is the opposite of being conservative, restrained or preferring the status quo. It's now a party cult worship and white social grievance. No one gives a $%%^ about "small government" or tradition or deference to institutions or the status quo.

You're stuck in a time warp pretending to support a version of the Republican Party that died long ago. You can't or won't admit it. Sad.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
23,228
Reaction score
6,991
Points
113
Trumpism is the opposite of being conservative, restrained or preferring the status quo. It's now a party cult worship and white social grievance. No one gives a $%%^ about "small government" or tradition or deference to institutions or the status quo.

You're stuck in a time warp pretending to support a version of the Republican Party that died long ago. You can't or won't admit it. Sad.
DRINK!
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,759
Reaction score
3,854
Points
113
Trumpism is the opposite of being conservative, restrained or preferring the status quo. It's now a party cult worship and white social grievance. No one gives a $%%^ about "small government" or tradition or deference to institutions or the status quo.

You're stuck in a time warp pretending to support a version of the Republican Party that died long ago. You can't or won't admit it. Sad.
I never claimed Trump was a conservative…so there’s that. Many Trump supporters aren’t Republican or conservative, but are just frustrated at traditional political processes and want something different. That has nothing to do with what I’m talking about.

The Republican Party may need Trump supporters to win elections, but they do not make up the majority of the party, only a portion of it. Just like leftists make up a portion of the Democrat Party.

I know the Dem narrative is going to be running against Trump or Trumpism in the next elections regardless of whether Trump runs for President. It’s all you’ve got.

The stuff that Trump brought to the GOP and will be retained is a needed change.
 




Top Bottom