Cont: The Biden Presidency Part II

[theprestige]

Am I to believe that you seriously fail to comprehend the difference between coming up with possible things somebody else might be thinking (which are based on his/her actual behavior), and claiming certainty that one particular thing you came up with yourself is what they simply must be thinking (including when it has nothing at all to do with his/her actual behavior in any way)?

Coming up with one's own thoughts to ascribe to others is a perfectly normal human thing, but then failing to imagine even the possibility that they might think differently from that would be a fairly common human misconception. So it's actually possible that you're honestly representing your real, actual, fundamentally flawed mentality here. But you lie so much (especially to me about myself, which is weird because you know you can't fool me about myself) that I can't presume the former over the latter..

You ever stop to wonder just how much of the progressive epistemology of right-wing motivations is based on the same "reasoning"?

 

[theprestige]

Just write bills that get 60 votes. It is not hard.

Every once in a while, I find myself saying "this".

Supposedly there's broad bipartisan support for actual infrastructure spending. You'd think this would lead to an endless parade of focused infrastructure bills with supermajority backing. If nothing else, it would be fertile ground for lucrative horse-trading and seniority payouts.

"Our blue-ribbon commission has produced a ranked list of the top 100 bridges that need refurbishing/replacement. This bill provides funding for the top ten. Next quarter, we'll do ten more... What's that? You need your bridge on this list, so you can throw your restive voters a bone? Sure thing. What's it worth to you? A seniority step-down on the next open committee seat? A quid pro quo vote for my upcoming porkbarrel bill? Have your people call my people. I'm sure we can work something out."

The NFL has a whole secondary market in Draft Pick Trades. You'd think infrastructure budgeting would engeder something similar in Congress. Instead, we get this multi-trillion-dollar "infrastructure" monstrosity that can't even get a bare majority.

 

[Cain]

But if there is no federal law to protect voting rights, numerous Republican states will in effect be able to name Trump the winner, either by suppressing non-Trump votes or by the legislature declaring a winner despite the popular vote. This is not a trivial matter. Trump could win in 2024, by hook or by crook.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/democracy-could-die-2024/619390/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-republican-plot-to-steal-the-2024-election/ar-BB1g6fnY
https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/reading-the-republican-autopsy

Of course Trump could regain power. Of course. I'm just saying it's less likely than people seem to assume. Granted, I was completely wrong about 2016, but that was a fluke others can learn from, especially flesh-eating Republican rivals who crave power. Regardless of who secures the nomination, securing instructured-delegate style voting in the EC is important, as it's totally possible a candidate could lose the popular vote, end up with fewer votes in the EC, yet still win the presidency. It's happened before.

 

[johnny karate]

You ever stop to wonder just how much of the progressive epistemology of right-wing motivations is based on the same "reasoning"?

Yes, if only we could understand the true motivations of the ideology that embraces violent insurrection and a complete lack of concern for public health and safety during a pandemic.

I think if we get a few more media interviews with patrons at a diner in Trump country, we might finally crack this mystery.

 

[BobTheCoward]

But if there is no federal law to protect voting rights, numerous Republican states will in effect be able to name Trump the winner, either by suppressing non-Trump votes or by the legislature declaring a winner despite the popular vote. This is not a trivial matter. Trump could win in 2024, by hook or by crook.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/democracy-could-die-2024/619390/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-republican-plot-to-steal-the-2024-election/ar-BB1g6fnY
https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/reading-the-republican-autopsy

I understand suppressing votes, but what is your objection to the legislature picking the electors? That seems an incredibly clear, constitutional process. There is zero bad actors in that scenario.

 

[abaddon]

Just write bills that get 60 votes. It is not hard.

Sure. Free Unicorn for all. That's the kind of bill you want.

 

[johnny karate]

Every once in a while, I find myself saying "this".

Supposedly there's broad bipartisan support for actual infrastructure spending. You'd think this would lead to an endless parade of focused infrastructure bills with supermajority backing. If nothing else, it would be fertile ground for lucrative horse-trading and seniority payouts.

"Our blue-ribbon commission has produced a ranked list of the top 100 bridges that need refurbishing/replacement. This bill provides funding for the top ten. Next quarter, we'll do ten more... What's that? You need your bridge on this list, so you can throw your restive voters a bone? Sure thing. What's it worth to you? A seniority step-down on the next open committee seat? A quid pro quo vote for my upcoming porkbarrel bill? Have your people call my people. I'm sure we can work something out."

The NFL has a whole secondary market in Draft Pick Trades. You'd think infrastructure budgeting would engeder something similar in Congress. Instead, we get this multi-trillion-dollar "infrastructure" monstrosity that can't even get a bare majority.

Rebublicans are literally killing themselves by the tens of thousands to spit in the eye of Democrats. They've become a death cult.

But yeah sure, the content of the bill is why there's no Republican support.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Rebublicans are literally killing themselves by the tens of thousands to spit in the eye of Democrats. They've become a death cult.

But yeah sure, the content of the bill is why there's no Republican support.

It is.

 

[johnny karate]

It is.

Your mindless contrarianism has been noted. Thanks for sharing.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Your mindless contrarianism has been noted. Thanks for sharing.

Oh yeah? Write a tax cut.

 

[johnny karate]

Oh yeah? Write a tax cut.

A tax cut.

Now what?

 

[BobTheCoward]

A tax cut.

Now what?

I meant if the democrats put forth tax cuts or abortion bans, they would get republican votes.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Oh yeah? Write a tax cut.

A tax cut.

Now what?

 

[Stacyhs]

I meant if the democrats put forth tax cuts or abortion bans, they would get republican votes.

So you're saying that Dems need to write bills that are basically Republican policies.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So you're saying that Dems need to write bills that are basically Republican policies.

Well, the person said,

But yeah sure, the content of the bill is why there's no Republican support

And based on your reply, it seems to be that the person was wrong, it seems obvious that the content of the bill would affect republican support.

 

[theprestige]

NM.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, the person said,



And based on your reply, it seems to be that the person was wrong, it seems obvious that the content of the bill would affect republican support.

I'm sorry. It's my fault for taking you seriously and responding to your post. I should know better.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm sorry. It's my fault for taking you seriously and responding to your post. I should know better.

You seemed shocked when you thought I was saying Democrats should write republican bills. But it is still an issue when I point out I wasn't saying that?

 

[Stacyhs]

You seemed shocked when you thought I was saying Democrats should write republican bills. But it is still an issue when I point out I wasn't saying that?

No. It's that I've learned from experience that any topic discussion with you goes straight down the rabbit hole.

 

[Delvo]

You ever stop to wonder just how much of the progressive epistemology of right-wing motivations is based on the same "reasoning"?

No need to stop & wonder; it's so bad it keeps jumping out & screaming at me.

Supposedly there's broad bipartisan support for actual infrastructure spending. You'd think this would lead to an endless parade of focused infrastructure bills with supermajority backing.

You would think that, if you weren't aware that support among the populace does not equal support among the politicians because the politicians primarily work for who pays them.