|
Lastgirl posted:in shocking news eric garlicman is dumb as gently caress Bad dems trying to blame shift everything on to Russia. Bernie had a such a unprecedented popularity and increase in political standing because people believe his message & trust his integrity.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:its gonna own so hard when trump appoints a chud as fed chair who then cuts off the quantitative easing money train and destroys the economy in a deflationary death spiral bring back the gold standard
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:
So what actually happened is Obama cut a deal with Republicans in order to get what he wanted from them. It was probably a bad deal, but Obama wasn't "pushing for" those cuts at all, that's just bullshit you made up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:So what actually happened is Obama cut a deal with Republicans in order to get what he wanted from them. It was probably a bad deal, but Obama wasn't "pushing for" those cuts at all, that's just bullshit you made up. I liked it when he almost sold out everything benefit like social security for a grand bargin but the greed of the Tea Party caucus meant they missed out on the deal because they want just a bit more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
etalian posted:Even sea life is becoming Bernie bros Oh no. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:So what actually happened is Obama cut a deal with Republicans in order to get what he wanted from them. It was probably a bad deal, but Obama wasn't "pushing for" those cuts at all, that's just bullshit you made up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
also the democrats supported the original bush tax cuts and tax repatriation as well setting up the stage for the lovely bill in december ityool 2017
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:So what actually happened is Obama cut a deal with Republicans in order to get what he wanted from them. It was probably a bad deal, but Obama wasn't "pushing for" those cuts at all, that's just bullshit you made up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:lol the democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the senate for a large period of time it was only for 10 months what do you expect them to get done in that time?? I say as republicans smash a horrific tax bill down our throats in under 3 weeks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/SenateDems/status/937835958350897152
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:lol the democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the senate for a large period of time They had 58 Senators (including Bernie and the other independent at that time). They could not have passed anything without Republican votes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:do you really not understand at all why sanders did an 8 hour filibuster in protest I understand it quite a bit better than you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:They had 58 Senators (including Bernie and the other independent at that time). They could not have passed anything without Republican votes. these are the votes on obamacare by a filibuster proof majority of the democratic party causus. not a single republican voted for it and it passed. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:oh my loving god dude do you not know anything That was later on, look up the stimulus bill legislative process--they had 58 senators seated. Three Republicans voted for it (one of whom later switched parties). It was time-sensitive so they couldn't wait for a longer process and slammed through a compromise bill. Again, you're just fundamentally wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
the democrats can have a filibuster proof majority caucus which they just used to pass huge legislation and you will still cry and mewl about how the republicans are so mean and how the democrats had to cave and pass massive tax cuts for the wealthy and slash the estate tax for the wealthy
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
you see they had to keep the filibuster alive so republicans would rewrite all the laws with just 50 votes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:That was later on, look up the stimulus bill legislative process--they had 58 senators seated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:what the gently caress dude you're being just as bad as concerned citizen Have you looked it up yet? Let me know if you need some links, lmao.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
lieberman and sanders were part of the democratic caucus that passed obamacare with absolutely zero republican votes. this caucus could have been used to not pass giant tax cut extensions for the wealthy and giant cuts to the estate tax which benefits only the wealthy. they needed zero republican votes i know you're trying to rationalize a good guy bad guy narrative in your head that obama didn't want to pass immense tax cuts for the wealthy like the bush and trump administrations, but the facts state otherwise
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
obama is trash
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/937845393941041152
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:obama is trash As are all liberals, agreed
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:lieberman and sanders were part of the democratic caucus that passed obamacare with absolutely zero republican votes. this caucus could have been used to not pass giant tax cut extensions for the wealthy and giant cuts to the estate tax which benefits only the wealthy. they needed zero republican votes I'm not rationalizing a single thing; I'm explaining the foundational facts to you. Franken wasn't seated due to the recount and Arlen was a Republican at the time. The Dems had exactly 58 votes if you count Sanders and Lieberman. They got three Republicans, Collins, Snowe, and Specter (who later flipped and became a Democrat) onboard to get 61 total votes and break the filibuster. They probably traded too much to get these votes, of course, but it wasn't an Obama plot to demand extra tax cuts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:obama is trash
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
why beat around the bush and not just straight out say we already are an oligarchy
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:He has finally surpassed HA Goodman. He has achieved maximum polarity. My God, my gosldejwi
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I'm not rationalizing a single thing; I'm explaining the foundational facts to you. Franken wasn't seated due to the recount and Arlen was a Republican at the time. The Dems had exactly 58 votes if you count Sanders and Lieberman. They got three Republicans, Collins, Snowe, and Specter (who later flipped and became a Democrat) onboard to get 61 total votes and break the filibuster. They probably traded too much to get these votes, of course, but it wasn't an Obama plot to demand extra tax cuts. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00276 A much larger majority of republicans voted for this 'compromise' while the dems had a slim majority vote for it. Vote by party Yea Nay Democrats 43 13 Republicans 37 5 Independents 1 1 Vote by party Yea Nay Democrats 139 112 Republicans 138 36 Total 277 148
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:They had 58 Senators (including Bernie and the other independent at that time). They could not have passed anything without Republican votes. or they could have had balls, nuked the filibuster and passed it with 51 just like Mitch is doing right now
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:or they could have had balls, nuked the filibuster and passed it with 51 just like Mitch is doing right now but what if the republicans nuke the filibuster?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:but what if the republicans nuke the filibuster?! They won't because the democrats won't make them by using it in the first place Actually they'll probably do it anyway whether Dems do poo poo or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/937858839160016896
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:or they could have had balls, nuked the filibuster and passed it with 51 just like Mitch is doing right now look once the dems nuke the filibuster theres no going back and we need to keep it so itll be a weapon the dems can use in the future
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:look once the dems nuke the filibuster theres no going back and we need to keep it so itll be a weapon the dems can use in the future if the dem party was capable of blowing a homophobic racist who thinks women shouldnt vote and has a large number of pedophilia accusations against him out of the water id say get rid of it but they aint so
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
im just saying it was a specious argument that the dems cant loosen the rules because thatd let the republicans operate under those loosened rules because the first thing the republicans did was loosen the rules so they could steal the gorsuck seat, and it was as obvious in 2010 that they didnt respect the rules that democrats think they do as it is now
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:im just saying it was a specious argument that the dems cant loosen the rules because thatd let the republicans operate under those loosened rules because the first thing the republicans did was loosen the rules so they could steal the gorsuck seat, and it was as obvious in 2010 that they didnt respect the rules that democrats think they do as it is now it was the dems that loosened the rules that ultimately led to that because they tossed the filibuster to pass judicial nominees
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
the legislative filibuster will never die because every election year a new sociopathic cruz-lite comes into congress eyeing the filibuster as a way to get the limelight
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:it was the dems that loosened the rules that ultimately led to that because they tossed the filibuster to pass judicial nominees right but they left it in place for scotus nominees which the republicans undid i dont think the republicans would have let the dems filibuster gorsuch and potentially lose the scotus even if the dems didnt nuke it for non-scotus nominees
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Obama loosened his bowels all over the US Constitution iykwim
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
logikv9 posted:it was the dems that loosened the rules that ultimately led to that because they tossed the filibuster to pass judicial nominees That's true but let's be honest here, the GOP would have done it anyway for their SCOTUS seat. Also lmao, losing that seat blocked meaningful campaign finance reform basically for our lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 03:37
|
|