House Dems draw the line: No bipartisan cooperation with Republicans who questioned the election

[Papageorgio]

Bad idea. Dumb idea. Just shut the door early on. "I'm not gonna work with you, so there".

Not good to see the Democrats voluntarily tell us they're no better than the Republicans.

Another example of how the ideologically rigid ends of our spectrum are the damn problem.

Describe what compromise or "middle ground" looks like to you when there's one party that sees a problem, has a solution for it, but the other party says there's no problem at all.

Describe how "coming together" would look like to you, under those circumstances.

This is exactly the question I get from Trumpsters.

Honest people of good faith can drop the politics and work together. "Compromise" doesn't mean 50/50. It means that sometimes, in the big picture, Person A will get things 75% their way. Sometimes person B will get things 75% their way. And sometimes, if we're lucky, the two will truly collaborate and innovate something brand new. Like our Constitution.

This isn't news. This the way things work in businesses across the world. It's a damn shame that politics has so been so polluted by ego and tribalism.

I say that to Trumpsters, too.

"Honest people" don't exist in the Beltway.

 

[Mac-7]

DACA protection for Border Wall funds was tried.

It was bait and switch

the DACAs get nonrefundable green cards but the border wall money was only promised by one congress but might not be honored in the future

remember the Vietnam War agreement where congress promised conservatives to fund the south vietnamese army but then changed its mind after we left?

but I was really speaking about phonies like Mac1958 who could have pitched in a lent his support to more compromises but sat on the sidelines or just attacked trump at every turn

 

[MarcATL]

This is exactly the question I get from Trumpsters.

Honest people of good faith can drop the politics and work together. "Compromise" doesn't mean 50/50. It means that sometimes, in the big picture, Person A will get things 75% their way. Sometimes person B will get things 75% their way. And sometimes, if we're lucky, the two will truly collaborate and innovate something brand new. Like our Constitution.

This isn't news. This the way things work in businesses across the world. It's a damn shame that politics has so been so polluted by ego and tribalism.

I say that to Trumpsters, too.

This is where you and I start to butt heads.

I give all these specific examples and responses, and you come back w/incredibly generic and vague responses. But, you do know for sure that "both sides are the same."

Let me narrow it down even more.

In the example of Climate Change, the Democrats recognize the serious problem it presents, and wants to do things about it. The Republicans say "what climate change? Nothing to see here."

In the situation of healthcare. Democrats recognize the problem of, not only the rising costs of healthcare, but the lack of access to humongous swath of Americans. Republicans say "there's no problem, the market is handling it just fine."

Explain to me how you would see those two examples working out based on your statements.

 

[Mac1958]

Bad idea. Dumb idea. Just shut the door early on. "I'm not gonna work with you, so there".

Not good to see the Democrats voluntarily tell us they're no better than the Republicans.

Another example of how the ideologically rigid ends of our spectrum are the damn problem.

Describe what compromise or "middle ground" looks like to you when there's one party that sees a problem, has a solution for it, but the other party says there's no problem at all.

Describe how "coming together" would look like to you, under those circumstances.

This is exactly the question I get from Trumpsters.

Honest people of good faith can drop the politics and work together. "Compromise" doesn't mean 50/50. It means that sometimes, in the big picture, Person A will get things 75% their way. Sometimes person B will get things 75% their way. And sometimes, if we're lucky, the two will truly collaborate and innovate something brand new. Like our Constitution.

This isn't news. This the way things work in businesses across the world. It's a damn shame that politics has so been so polluted by ego and tribalism.

I say that to Trumpsters, too.

"Honest people" don't exist in the Beltway.

Everything is relative. We keep our standards as high as we can.

 

[BlindBoo]

The precedent has been applied consistently in all states, no unconstitutional changes were made.

Again, prove that using actual facts. Not smoke blown out of your ass.

What change was declared unconstitutional?

 

[MarcATL]

Neat logic. No really dude, I've read your posts and you're one of the smartest PROGS here

By default, progressives are smarter than everyone else.

 

[BlindBoo]

He did indeed. The Legislature sued him over it. The Texas Supreme Court ruled in his favor. The USSC has broadly interpreted the term 'legislature' to mean a State's Law making apparatus and the election officials have the legal authority to make such adjustments to the election law.

How about documenting your claim that election officials have the authority to "adjust" election law.

That's not what the US Constitution says.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the “Legislature” of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.

The Court also has held that a legislature may delegate its authority under the Elections Clause to other entities or officials. A few states have chosen to transfer power to draw congressional district lines from their respective legislatures to non-partisan or bipartisan “independent redistricting commissions.” These states believe that such commissions can make the electoral process more fair by preventing voters from being divided into congressional districts in ways that unduly protect existing officeholders (“gerrymandering”).

 

[Papageorgio]

Bad idea. Dumb idea. Just shut the door early on. "I'm not gonna work with you, so there".

Not good to see the Democrats voluntarily tell us they're no better than the Republicans.

Another example of how the ideologically rigid ends of our spectrum are the damn problem.

Describe what compromise or "middle ground" looks like to you when there's one party that sees a problem, has a solution for it, but the other party says there's no problem at all.

Describe how "coming together" would look like to you, under those circumstances.

This is exactly the question I get from Trumpsters.

Honest people of good faith can drop the politics and work together. "Compromise" doesn't mean 50/50. It means that sometimes, in the big picture, Person A will get things 75% their way. Sometimes person B will get things 75% their way. And sometimes, if we're lucky, the two will truly collaborate and innovate something brand new. Like our Constitution.

This isn't news. This the way things work in businesses across the world. It's a damn shame that politics has so been so polluted by ego and tribalism.

I say that to Trumpsters, too.

"Honest people" don't exist in the Beltway.

Everything is relative. We keep our standards as high as we can.

No we don't. Honesty doesn't exist inside the beltway. We have all known this for years and scandal after scandal proves it.

 

[jc456]

They swore to uphold the Constitution as they tried desperately to overthrow the winner of the 50 State election as prescribed by that Constitution. Vote the traitors out in 22, 24 and finally 26.

(eyes rolling) There is much evidence that calls into doubt the claim that Dementia Joe actually
won the presidency. Surely you know this.

It is a fact that there were many wild allegations of wide spread fraud that were never proven in court. All the states certified that their vote totals were valid, fair and accurate.

I would like a full audit of any state that didn’t turn blue. Kansas loves trump? Alabama? North Dakota? I want to audit their voting machines.

The Texas Governor changes the dates on Mail In voting without the legislature's approval. We need to invalidate the entire state results too. Texas can't even conduct a paper recount.

if he indeed did that, then indeed, it follows for any state who did that. I'm good with a complete do over for the country. I'm consistent.

He did indeed. The Legislature sued him over it. The Texas Supreme Court ruled in his favor. The USSC has broadly interpreted the term 'legislature' to mean a State's Law making apparatus and the election officials have the legal authority to make such adjustments to the election law.

you read my post, to be fair, let's redo the election for those states who unconstitutionally change election day rules without legislature law. I'm consistent.

The precedent has been applied consistently in all states, no unconstitutional changes were made.

sure it was unconstitutional. legislature makes election law. not any one person can play dictator to a country no matter your party.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

What change was declared unconstitutional?

You're dodging my direct question.
So my BS detector has gone off and your dodging confirms it.

Whether someone wants to take the Georgia legislature, for instance, to court or not doesn't change
the clear words of the constitution.

Now show me where the US Constitution has been amended so anyone can change election law.

 

[BlindBoo]

DACA protection for Border Wall funds was tried.

It was bait and switch

the DACAs get nonrefundable green cards but the border wall money was only promised by one congress but might not be honored in the future

remember the Vietnam War agreement where congress promised conservatives to fund the south vietnamese army but then changed its mind after we left?

but I was really speaking about phonies like Mac1958 who could have pitched in a lent his support to more compromises but sat on the sidelines or just attacked trump at every turn

There was no path to citizenship and the funds were substantial. It would have been a good deal for both sides.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

sure it was unconstitutional. legislature makes election law. not any one person can play dictator to a country no matter your party.

Right on! Why can the Secretary of State in Michigan or Pennsylvania (or any state, for that matter) unilaterally make state election law! I thought law making was the job of the state legislature!

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. It would go a long to explaining how Joe Biden could have stayed home in his basement for most of the election yet supposedly got a record number of votes, somehow.

 

[Mac1958]

This is exactly the question I get from Trumpsters.

Honest people of good faith can drop the politics and work together. "Compromise" doesn't mean 50/50. It means that sometimes, in the big picture, Person A will get things 75% their way. Sometimes person B will get things 75% their way. And sometimes, if we're lucky, the two will truly collaborate and innovate something brand new. Like our Constitution.

This isn't news. This the way things work in businesses across the world. It's a damn shame that politics has so been so polluted by ego and tribalism.

I say that to Trumpsters, too.

This is where you and I start to butt heads.

I give all these specific examples and responses, and you come back w/incredibly generic and vague responses. But, you do know for sure that "both sides are the same."

Let me narrow it down even more.

In the example of Climate Change, the Democrats recognize the serious problem it presents, and wants to do things about it. The Republicans say "what climate change? Nothing to see here."

In the situation of healthcare. Democrats recognize the problem of, not only the rising costs of healthcare, but the lack of access to humongous swath of Americans. Republicans say "there's no problem, the market is handling it just fine."

Explain to me how you would see those two examples working out based on your statements.

Healthcare: For the Democrats: Expand the entire Medicare system to all. For the Republicans: Include the current Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system, which is an excellent and popular public/private partnership that maintains dynamic free-market competition and innovation. Age-band the Medicare coverage from 40% (for younger, healthier people whose supplemental coverage will be far less costly) to the current 80% or even 90% with supplemental coverage as needed. The main problem will be provider compensation and contracting, which will have to addressed (that wouldn't take a miracle). All portable plans, which take a massive cost monkey off the backs of American employers. My idea, you won't see that anywhere else.

Climate Change: The main hurdle is cost. Now that the curve is bending in the right direction, we're getting closer to being able to privately fund R&D. Empower the Office of Global Change/Environment under the US Department of State to issue Climate Change Bonds so that individual and institutional investors can fund startups and expansions. Participating private companies must agree to regulations in the areas of hiring, stock buybacks, executive bonuses, and the cross-training of those who are losing their jobs in the older energy technologies. My idea, you won't see that anywhere else.

That's where we start the conversations. The more moderate members of each party can take it from there. Or at least try to, which is a helluva lot better than we're getting now. Those who can't commit to communication, collaboration and innovation can join another committee and play their stupid partisan games.

 

[BlindBoo]

They swore to uphold the Constitution as they tried desperately to overthrow the winner of the 50 State election as prescribed by that Constitution. Vote the traitors out in 22, 24 and finally 26.

(eyes rolling) There is much evidence that calls into doubt the claim that Dementia Joe actually
won the presidency. Surely you know this.

It is a fact that there were many wild allegations of wide spread fraud that were never proven in court. All the states certified that their vote totals were valid, fair and accurate.

I would like a full audit of any state that didn’t turn blue. Kansas loves trump? Alabama? North Dakota? I want to audit their voting machines.

The Texas Governor changes the dates on Mail In voting without the legislature's approval. We need to invalidate the entire state results too. Texas can't even conduct a paper recount.

if he indeed did that, then indeed, it follows for any state who did that. I'm good with a complete do over for the country. I'm consistent.

He did indeed. The Legislature sued him over it. The Texas Supreme Court ruled in his favor. The USSC has broadly interpreted the term 'legislature' to mean a State's Law making apparatus and the election officials have the legal authority to make such adjustments to the election law.

you read my post, to be fair, let's redo the election for those states who unconstitutionally change election day rules without legislature law. I'm consistent.

The precedent has been applied consistently in all states, no unconstitutional changes were made.

sure it was unconstitutional. legislature makes election law. not any one person can play dictator to a country no matter your party.

Our courts disagree.

Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

 

[BlindBoo]

What change was declared unconstitutional?

You're dodging my direct question.
So my BS detector has gone off and your dodging confirms it.

Whether someone wants to take the Georgia legislature, for instance, to court or not doesn't change
the clear words of the constitution.

Now show me where the US Constitution has been amended so anyone can change election law.

If the changes were unconstitutional then a court must have made that determination. What were they?

Also, which state has elections that are not governed by election law signed by the Governor, or one that doesn't have election officials who can make minor changes to the election procedures?

 

[Grumblenuts]

For the Republicans: Include the current Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system, which is an excellent and popular public/private partnership that maintains dynamic free-market competition and innovation.

Two very different things you're oddly banging together there! Both embarrassing and unfortunate / the former simply being highway robbery.

 

[Mac1958]

For the Republicans: Include the current Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system, which is an excellent and popular public/private partnership that maintains dynamic free-market competition and innovation.

Two very different things you're oddly banging together there! Both embarrassing and unfortunate / the former simply being highway robbery.

Those are the two options that Medicare participants have to add to their coverage. It's standard Medicare, and then one of those two.

No banging involved.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Our courts disagree.

Hate to tell you: Constitution Center. org is not exactly a "court".
In fact it is exactly NOT a court of any kind.

 

[Grumblenuts]

For the Republicans: Include the current Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system, which is an excellent and popular public/private partnership that maintains dynamic free-market competition and innovation.

Two very different things you're oddly banging together there! Both embarrassing and unfortunate / the former simply being highway robbery.

Those are the two options that Medicare participants have to add to their coverage. It's standard Medicare, and then one of those two.

No banging involved.

No, you described both as "excellent" and they are very different programs!

 

[Mac1958]

For the Republicans: Include the current Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system, which is an excellent and popular public/private partnership that maintains dynamic free-market competition and innovation.

Two very different things you're oddly banging together there! Both embarrassing and unfortunate / the former simply being highway robbery.

Those are the two options that Medicare participants have to add to their coverage. It's standard Medicare, and then one of those two.

No banging involved.

No, you described both as "excellent" and they are very different programs!

Yes, they are different programs. That is the option that Medicare participants have. One or the other.

I don't know what is so confusing here.