Like most Covid related issues, only in crazy GOP world is this a partisan issue.

Which Democratic Senators do all the time. You think Sanders listens to Schumer? Hell, what did you think the Sanders Markey attempt was if it wasn't trying to do what they want regardless of McConnell's wishes? This lefty gallop to dunk on the Dems by saying the GOP knows how to play the PR game by using the example of Hawley doing the equivalent of throwing a tantrum is just mind boggling.

A lot of Dems like to wistful hope the Democrats in Congress can act as Machiavellian as the Republicans in Congress and take power for its own sake, but I don’t think they’d actually like what that actually means. Take what’s going on now. The GOP playbook, if they were the Dems, is to do what the Dems are doing now. Keep hammering that McConnell is blocking the $2000. When McConnell introduces a poison pill bill, barely acknowledge it. Continue saying pass the House bill. McConnell is blocking. He’s introduced a distraction bill, so he wouldn’t pass the $2000 that the President is advocating. Make noise about holding up the NDAA, but DO NOT do so (you immediately lose both GA races if you do). And most importantly, you DO NOT want the $2000 to pass. You want the Congressional session to expire with loud it’s McConnell’s fault so that you can use it for the 2 Georgia Senate races.

And then when you take the Senate you wait until Biden becomes President, pass a $2000 stimulus bill and let Biden take credit and dunk on Trump for it (saying he couldn’t close the deal), even though people are more hurt by waiting.

That’s how to act like the Republicans and win the PR war and hopefully win the Senate - it’s not exactly the result a lot of Dems would want (in that you don’t care about the $2000, you just care about it as a political tool). And if you don’t win the 2 GA races, don’t bother with the $2000 stimulus but keep blaming McConnell.

They could hold up the NDAA and force everyone to spend New Years in DC.

Which I believe is Bernies plan.

They can't make the 2000 dollar checks happen, but they can vote for the package and make the GOP vote it down or kill it in conference. Internet companies should understand that the Dems won't always protect them from the GOP.

He knew it was their leverage. I would say Democrats are too stupid to figure that out but in reality they just don't give a shit about $2000 checks and care more about defense contractors getting paid.

You don't need to hold up the NDAA, you can just refuse to override the veto till there is a vote on $2k. Overriding the veto let Trump off the hook anyway.

It is informative to watch the discussion happening with my conservative relatives & their friends on Facebook.

They are talking about the $600 checks. And they are complaining about not getting $2000 checks. But the blame for not getting the money is on “them.“ Meaning Congress/politicians. And, in fact, the discussion has become that “they“ won’t give us the money, but “they“ will end up taking it back and more in taxes.

I am not sure what the answer is. But I think that Democratic politicians overestimate the extent to which people pay attention to the specifics of who is doing what in DC.

Dola:

The biggest Blindspot of people obsessed with politics is forgetting how few people are obsessed with politics.

On that I fully agree with albionmoonlight. Most people in general just don't care, but on the other hand you don't need most people. You only need to enough for a electoral majority.

I don't know an answer beyond a more informed populace, which means they have to care more than they do (it's not about education per se here, it's more about people wanting to stay up on what happens in the political sphere). I've said my piece on that whole can of worms many times.

The decision not to get $2000 checks in the Senate was bipartisan. Despite public proclamations, the VP-elect and Senate Minority Leader both fought against it.

Thr people want it and their representatives in the House voted for it. This includes the current President and future President. Unfortunately our House of Lords wields more power.

Seems like in the recent years we've introduced a whole new swath of people that are highly engaged with 'politics' in general yet cant to be bothered to figure out the details.

I said a short while ago to a friend, a huge problem with Trump, and by proxy his followers, think that things SHOULD be a certain way, so in their mind when they aren't he has been wronged. Nevermind how things are supposed to be.

The defense veto may be more if a negative in the Senate race in Georgia than blocking the extra money. A large part of Georgia's economy is tied around the many large military bases here. Dems need to find a way to be fighting for both.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Absolutely. There'll are a lot of people that have been sucked into politics over the past 4 years that don't understand how things work. My wife has tried multiple times to explain how calling states work to her friend yet she still believes Washington doesn't count republican votes because the state was called a few minutes after polls closed. Since she lives in a heavy Trump town she genuinely thought Trump and Culp were going to win and since they didn't the system must be corrupt.

To be fair, I personally became much more engaged with politics over the last 4 years, to the detriment of my mental & emotional health, strictly because the Trump trainwreck was entertaining & I found it harder and harder to ignore every day.



I hope a return to some kind of normalcy in governance will at least give me relief from my own political rubbernecking, even if a significant piece of the right want to continue to give Trump all of their attention.

reading trumpers complain about rich politicians is pretty funny

McConnell did everything he did for republicans to stop democrats from getting anything done the last 12 years, all of a sudden they think he's a bad guy when he's simply being consistent within party lines.

I dont remember if i read it here or not but someone mentioned republicans/trumpers want handouts as much as liberals but they want (R) or TRUMP stamped next to it.

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/statu...161120769?s=19

That's awesome! Lol

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Yep. Democrats in the Senate need to be careful here. They are doing the PR game well so far but being tagged with deep sixing the NDAA (even though Trump vetoed it...) will hand Georgia to Perdue and Loeffler.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

President Trump is the one who vetoed the bill. Loeffler and Perdue would be forced to side with the President or to override his veto. I would much rather see them put on the spot.


How would Democrats be blamed for something Trump vetoed? This is not about PR, it's about making sure their contractor buddies get paid. I can't believe people keep defending Democrats for losing over and over again.

Good PR is getting $2000 to everyone.

How would the Democrats be blamed for something Trump vetoed? Have you ever met any Republicans? GD and I are both in GA and know how it'll play out.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Those people were never going to vote for a Democrat.

Georgia went for Biden... A not insignificant amount of those voters were Biden Perdue voters. (Heck I know of some Warnock-Perdue voters)

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

So make Perdue and Loeffler vote on it. They can betray Trump or stick with him.

Yes, not blocking a vote on the NDAA would make Loeffler and Perdue have to take a stand and vote for or against it. Thanks for agreeing

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

They don't need to vote. Enough Dems will vote for the override.

Smart move is have Democrats not vote and force the Republicans to override it on their own (they don't have the votes to do it).

81-13 on the override vote. Loeffler and Perdue didn't even have to vote. Just another wonderful move by the Democrats.

With Trump a no-show, Mar-a-Lago guests left to party maskless with Rudy Giuliani and Vanilla Ice

Vanilla Ice? He really couldn't get anyone better than Vanilla Ice? It's like he was pranking his guests.

Our stimulus hit, and interestingly enough we did get $600 for our son. He turned 17 after our last filing, so I wonder if they were basing that on his age then. Also for the record, I had to put my account in for the last one (paid the last two years). So they are using that information this time.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Ours too, but we only got money for 3 of the 5 of us. Same as before.

Darn, just checked and nothing yet.

Mine is pending right now with a date of the 4th.

Mine just came in today. I'll get a minor vehicle repair done sooner than I would have otherwhise. That's about the only stimulus effect it'll have.

We passed ours straight to the church.

I'm heading to AC with mine to put 100 on Red, and if that fails I'll put 200 on Red, and if that fails I'll put 300 on Red and if that fails I guess roulette isn't for me.

Let’s all enjoy those $600 though

World's richest people added $1.8T to their combined wealth in 2020 | TheHill

This.

Don't worry, it will trickle down eventually.

This is fine:

Louie Gohmert on Newsmax: "But if bottom line is, the court is saying, 'We're not going to touch this. You have no remedy' -- basically, in effect, the ruling would be that you gotta go the streets and be as violent as Antifa and BLM." pic.twitter.com/cZIdGTiQls

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 2, 2021

So when does it become sedition?

When the Dems do it, of course, silly!

SI

Gohmert is on my list of Top 5 worse people in Congress, and sometimes like when he says stuff like this he's #1. He should not be allowed to sit in the new Congress, removed as Chairman/members of any Committees he's in until he swears on a Bible that he will swear to abide by the results of the election and stop making it seem like the 80+ million people who voted for Biden are the evil ones/anarchists here.

Lets be honest, with this and the 11 Senators now on board led by Cruz, this is plain and simple a career move. Cruz has his sights on 2024, which is a totally unrealistic goal, but I am sure he thinks if Trump pulled it off, why I can't I ride his coattails and do the same?

None of these fuckers have any place in government after this stunt.

Fundraising off of idiots and 2024 is what this is all about.

From a misplaced discussion in another thread:


I don't know what makes you think this. I do agree with everybody deciding who to associate with and who not to. What I don't agree with is the idea of categorizing political views into those that acceptable and not by society as a whole, as you, PilotMan, and at least to a degree sterlingice have advocated.

Nowhere did I say that anyone *has* to associate with anyone. What I did say is that they *shouldn't* make that decision based on someone's political views. What one has a right to do and what they should do are completely different issues, as are one's personal associations and civil discourse in society as a whole. Those considerations needed to be kept distinct.

I would put it this way on the personal level: if somebody tells me they voted for Trump, or Biden, that tells me jack diddly squat about their character. Someone who voted for the 'right' candidate can be a jerk, and someone who voted for the 'wrong' candidate can be a fine human being who is a blessing to those who know them.

When the conversation morphed into discussion about the larger society and what's needed for democracy as a whole, that's where I asked the 'who gets to decide' question. It wasn't at all aimed at personal associations at that point.

Every individual person gets to decide who they want to associate and what those lines are. That's how those lines get drawn. It's those individual decisions that add up to what society tolerates as a whole. No one person decides for the entire society, so that's a pointless and disingenuous question.

Edit: I talked about my own personal views about my willingness to associate with these people, and your response was that it was important that we didn't cut them off, that we should find a middle ground, and that we should be "willing and able to engage with others for any reason". Then you said it was dangerous to democracy otherwise. So I'm not sure exactly what you're advocating for if not for individuals to change their actions with respect to who they're willing to associate with. But I'm positive you're not going to convince me to have Trump buddies.

Everybody has line where they're just not willing to normalize a viewpoint. Everybody's can be reasonably different. Trumpers who support his efforts to overthrow the election are well over that line for me. I can't stop others from validating and normalizing that view and treating those who have it as real human beings worthy of any respect. But I can do my part to draw that line in my own life. That doesn't mean that much on an individual level. But I can't act like this is a normal thing like a political discussion about gun control or tax rates. The idea that that's all this is - regular politics, we all have valid perspectives, lets all hold hands and find common ground - bothers me, and that's why I draw that line. Because it's not that.

Well said. I can disagree with people on many things politically and get along well, but the insane conspiracy theories go to far. It doesn't matter the facts, they are going to continue to believe the craziness. I have no interest in continuing slamming my head into a wall trying to reason with the unreasonable. Luckily, almost all the Trump supporters I know haven't fallen into that rabbit-hole.

Normalization isn't the issue here though. I haven't advocated for that at any point. It doesn't normalize, validate, affirm, or otherwhise endorse any viewpoint to be willing to associate with and speak to someone who believes it.

I think it does. I'm not sitting in my house, or at a party, and hearing out someone's Trump worship and why he's right to try to overthrow the election as some kind of valid opinion I need to engage. And I don't want people like that in my life. Sorry. If an old Nazi prison guard moved into my neighborhood, I wouldn't chum around with him either. They're both over that line for me. If I run into someone who feels differently than me about gun control, or taxes, or immigration, or the economy, then we can still drink beers all day. Not over the line for me. If a family member's over the line, so be it, they can choose that life, but I won't be a part of it.

Edit: The fact that it's even a debate whether overthrowing an election and imposing a dictatorship is just another political opinion that we should all try to see all perspectives of terrifies me even more, and makes me even more sure it's something that I have to keep on that side of the line. It's startling to me how this has become mainstream. I never believed this country would go that way.

I have no such line myself, and find the concept of one so much as existing to be wrong. .02