Right, well at least we can agree on that much Yes, he was forced to by the pandemic. If there wasn't a pandemic, I'm sure he would not have proposed a pandemic relief plan. That said, what Congress passed was Joe's proposal, more or less. Do you really think that was the minimum people would have accepted? I think it was the maximum (more or less) that he could have gotten through Congress. If he was really motivated the way you suggest, why propose $1.9T? Why the child tax credits, why the aid to state and local governments, etc? Why wouldn't he have proposed something much smaller, like the $600B the republicans wanted? Or something in between? barfo
This was in between what Republicans and most Democrats wanted. Majority of democrats wanted recurring payments through the end. Or at least $600 in unemployment throughout, and retroactive.
What matters is what 50 senators will agree to. That's all that matters. It doesn't matter what a 'majority of democrats' want, whether you meant senators or voters. barfo
But we don't know how they'd vote on a full $2k check because they didn't get a chance. And as such, we as voters can't hold them accountable for it as easily.
Glad Joes President but I remember in 2016 Hillary had guards encompass with rope her while she walked so reporters and others would bother her.
So the 25% to 30% of the population who don't like the platform of either the Republicans or Democrats should just shut up and pick one? That's your idea of Democratic? That, by definition puts control of the country in the hands of a minority. Not a majority, as the definition of democracy would suggest.
First, I have no idea where the 25% or 30% came - but I will ignore that for now - what I am saying is that you can not criticize who the Democratic party chooses if you do not want to be a part of the selection process. If it is more important to you to register independent than to vote for Bernie who you support - that is running as a democrat - you lose the right to complain about the Democratic party choosing someone else. As for the 2 parties vs. multiple parties argument - I always think it is a stupid argument as well. Basically, you replace a hierarchical selection process with a flat one. You still have the same selection options - only you think we should have them all at once instead of having a preliminary stage. There is no difference. The same options are available. Basically, a simplified selection process of: Trumper vs. traditional conservative for the republican party nomination against a centrist (Biden ) vs. very progressive (say, Bernie) for the democratic nomination, is the same as these 4 candidates going all at once for one vote takes all. The only difference is that you have to vote twice, once in the republican or democratic primary, followed by a vote at the national level. It is still the same candidates and the same options - the process is different. That's all. Finally, the entire argument is funny because Bernie seems to be delighted with this bill: https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/09/politics/what-matters-march-9/index.html There are around 200 million people eligible to vote in the USA, there were over 150 million that voted in the last election - definitely the majority of the eligible voters - so I call nonsense on that as well - and even if these that did not vote are not for either Biden or Trump - they could still vote for a 3rd, 4th or 5th candidate - but chose not to do so.
About 30% (actually closer to 35%, but I was just spit balling earlier) of registered voters are independent. There are just as many people who dislike both Democrats and Republicans as there are people who like one or the other. You're suggesting that everybody pick one of those two parties in the primaries and shut up. If you don't understand how that tilts the scales I'm just going to have to assume it's deliberate.
I lived through the Nixon years and he was a smart scoundrel. He was as close to high IQ levels because he was sinister and Knew what he was talking about. Trump was and is still just a vain old wind bag.
I suggest that many people who are registered independents do not care enough to participate in primaries and are centrists who are willing to vote for the better of the 2 options, I am certainly one of them. Registered independents to me is just as likely to signify willing to consider both based on issues than despise both. The voting records in general elections seem to align with that notion https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/
You can make an assumption with a high degree of confidence that it would not have passed. Things that don't come up for a vote don't come up for a vote because they won't pass. That's true. But there is very little evidence that most voters hold their senators accountable even for the votes that do happen. barfo
Right. I should have said they like both parties so much they choose to align with neither. So again, the largest segment of registered voters has to change their affiliation in order to support a candidate in a party which they are typically unwilling to remain a member of. You're right. It's perfect!
Good point. Best to just keep it all swept neatly under the rug like whatever those priests and the alter boys were getting up to...
Primaries are party elections, by definition. I'm not sure what it is you are arguing for. Should parties be forbidden from choosing their candidates in a primary? Maybe smoke-filled rooms instead? Or is it that you want other voters to participate in the party primary? They can, simply by changing their registration. Or do you just want to do away with parties altogether? In which case, good luck with that. barfo
Maggie must be a slammed door in the face Trumplican. She is not president with the world' troubles on her sloping shoulders. {Joe cares more about his job than himself}<{Possible presidential phrase for his next election when he turns 83}. The former guy cared about himself so much that his routine was light weight. I remember about his 60% executive time per day during the last two months. So fuckin what Maggie!. Go watch QVC and shut up. (((I don't tweet,whistle,face.telegram or do comb overs)))-((If anyone here can contact her account and tell her this, I would appreciate that. Of course, the curse words are not advisable at this time.
As the research I linked to shows - it seems to be the situation. If it is perfect, good, good enough, bad, or horrible - I would leave you to define as you wish - it is a judgement call. The reality is that you are upset that not enough people want to follow a party and participate - yet you choose to register as independent instead of voting for Bernie which seems like you preferred candidate - so... you seem to be just as indifferent as the people you admonish for being so.
No, I definitely voted for Bernie in the primary. As well as in the general in 2016. But because I did doesn't mean others would or could. It's not a good system just because I can navigate it. And no, I don't care about parties at all. Other than despising the 2 party system and the ignorance it perpetuates.
