We live in a third world Banana Republic (US)

Author: sadolite

Posts

Total: 49
#31
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
-correct...poison pill legislation isn't about MAKING anyone say yes or no

poison pill legislation takes laws that would never be passed with a majority of either party or with any bipartisan support and piggybacks them into necessary legislation so that powerful; special interests groups can continue to support Washington DC with the big bucks.

Did you know the ultra-rich lobbies support a minimum wage? Here is a big hint, it's not out of "compassion"
#32
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you know the ultra-rich lobbies support a minimum wage? Here is a big hint, it's not out of "compassion"
Easier to use robots amirite
#33
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
No that's not the reason. The fastest way and most efficient way to eliminate the competition under crony capitalism is to purchase politicians that impose the regulations their competition can't survive with.

From a lobbyist's perspective, the minimum wage has nothing to do with helping the poor and everything to do with destroying the competition.

Advocates insist that they want higher minimum wages, not just for local workers, but across the country. And they don’t just push for it nationwide they want our trade agreements to mandate higher wages in other countries. Their claimed rationale is that a higher minimum wage would improve the lot of low-skill workers everywhere, not just themselves – thus making this fight a part of a broader anti-poverty campaign. However, they ignore evidence and logic that contradicts their stated purpose.

One excellent source of evidence comes from apartheid-era South Africa. White labor unions backed “equal pay” laws in the guise of helping black workers. But it dramatically raised the price of hiring blacks, in comparison to the price of hiring whites. Blacks in South Africa had less education and fewer skills on average, in addition to being discriminated against regularly. Whites gained, but black unemployment jumped as a result of that “compassion” on their behalf.

So if you support the minimum wage, you are a fucking redneck confederate racist.
#34
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
Bruh what? Ossof and Warnock literally ran their entire campaign on 2000 dollar checks and now they’re backing off.
The $2000 is a continuation from the debate we had in December. Democrats wanted $2k, republicans stood on the way so democrats accepted the $600 and pledged to get the rest once they won the senate.

Anyone who was paying attention knew this and understood what they were talking about. It’s true that a lot of people did not understand and assumed it meant another $2k, misunderstandings that work in your favor are unfortunately nothing new in politics.

The 15 dollar wage is a poison pill. You could reasonably get bipartisan support without it, but now they purposefully put it in an irrelevant bill and their own party members are opposed to it. Why can’t Democrats pass two separate bills?
It’s not a poison pill. A poison pill is defined by its purpose; to stop the bill from passing. Democrats are putting it in there in an attempt to get it. That’s not the same thing.

The reason they don’t just leave it as a separate bill is because it probably won’t pass. The two democrats that object are more likely to cave in rather than to be stigmatized as standing in the way of COVID relief.

It’s ugly and dishonest, but this is how politics has always worked.
#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
A poison pill is defined by its purpose; to stop the bill from passing.

These are not poison pills. They are wishlists from powerful wealthy lobbyists.
#36
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
The $2000 is a continuation from the debate we had in December. Democrats wanted $2k, republicans stood on the way so democrats accepted the $600 and pledged to get the rest once they won the senate.

Anyone who was paying attention knew this and understood what they were talking about. It’s true that a lot of people did not understand and assumed it meant another $2k, misunderstandings that work in your favor are unfortunately nothing new in politics.
That is absurdly false. Ossoff, Warnock, and Biden all referred to 2000 dollar checks after the 600 dollar check bill had already passed. Even Alexandria Ocasió Cortez and your progressive buddies said they meant 2000 more on top the 600.

Trump signed the 600 dollar check bill on December 27th, 2020.


In January 4th, 2020, at a rally in Atlanta, Biden said this: "If you send Jon [Ossoff] and the reverend [Raphael Warnock] to Washington, those $2,000 checks will go out the door, restoring hope and decency for so many people who are struggling right now.”

This was after the 600 dollars had already started going out. Only an idiot would believe they meant 2000 total when Biden talks about 2000 dollar checks.

It’s not a poison pill. A poison pill is defined by its purpose; to stop the bill from passing. Democrats are putting it in there in an attempt to get it. That’s not the same thing.
No they put it in there because they don’t want the bill to pass lol. If they just cared about the money they wouldn’t attach if 15 dollar minimum wage lol. They’d pass that in a separate bill.

The reason they don’t just leave it as a separate bill is because it probably won’t pass. The two democrats that object are more likely to cave in rather than to be stigmatized as standing in the way of COVID relief.
LMAO. That’s literally the definition of poison pill. You put something into a bill that makes the bill impassable. They’re not going to cave in and your side will blame Republicans for not having it pass. I’ll tag you when this happens.

It’s ugly and dishonest, but this is how politics has always worked.
Your side is the one introducing an irrelevant measure to a Covid Bill. What does the 15 dollar minimum wage have to do with Covid? Pass the Covid Bill separately and don’t include any pork, it’s pretty simple, but your side doesn’t want that because they don’t want the bill to pass.
#37
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
they don’t want the bill to pass.
You're actually wrong about this. Democrats do want the bill to pass, they just want the bill to pass while also appeasing the fringe ultra-rich corporate lobbyists demanding a minimum wage to destroy their competition.
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
It’s ugly and dishonest, but this is how politics has always worked.
Politics hasn't always worked by appeasing the most powerful lobbyists.
#39
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
This was after the 600 dollars had already started going out. Only an idiot would believe they meant 2000 total when Biden talks about 2000 dollar checks.
Because once again, context be dammed.

I know this doesn’t make sense to you because right wing media has no interest in educating you, but anyone actually following the conversation knew this. Yes there were some left wing politicians calling for a whole new $2k, that’s not relevant to what the majority of the party was talking about.

No they put it in there because they don’t want the bill to pass lol. If they just cared about the money they wouldn’t attach if 15 dollar minimum wage lol. They’d pass that in a separate bill.
I’m starting to realize this is all you do. You don’t respond, you just repeat.

That’s literally the definition of poison pill. You put something into a bill that makes the bill impassable.
It’s not impassable. I just explained why. “Nuh uh” is not a response.

it’s pretty simple, but your side doesn’t want that because they don’t want the bill to pass.
Do you have any explanation for how on earth this makes sense to you?

The only explanation I gather is projection. Just because republicans don’t give a rat’s ass about helping people or fighting COVID doesn’t mean democrats don’t either.
#40
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
 Just because republicans don’t give a rat’s ass about helping people or fighting COVID doesn’t mean democrats don’t either.
Neither party gives a rat's ass when it conflicts with lobbyists money and their demands.

A famous quote from HRC was "never let a good crisis go to waste"
At least Hillary was honest about how Washington DC works. DC stands for Dysfunctional Cronyism.
#41
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Because once again, context be dammed.

I know this doesn’t make sense to you because right wing media has no interest in educating you, but anyone actually following the conversation knew this. Yes there were some left wing politicians calling for a whole new $2k, that’s not relevant to what the majority of the party was talking about.
How tf is context relevant to this when Biden, Warnock, and Ossoff word for word said they support 2000 dollar checks in people’s pockets. How tf do they do that if they don’t mean a separate 2k check lol. This has nothing to do with right wing media lol. Your own progressives said they meant 2000 when they said 2000. Your party was calling for the checks and clearly now they are backtracking because they only meant 1400 additional. You’re either being deceptively misleading or straight up lying which is abhorrent when people’s lives are at stake per your own party’s sayings.

I’m starting to realize this is all you do. You don’t respond, you just repeat.
Hey buddy it’s not rocket science. You can pass the Covid Bill easily without a 15 dollar minimum wage, but your side chooses not to. 

It’s not impassable. I just explained why. “Nuh uh” is not a response.
It literally is because two Democratic Senators have already said they will vote Nay if 15 dollar minimum wage is a part of it. It’s literally dumb af to move to a vote when you know you don’t have enough votes. There’s a reason why it’s at a standstill rn in the Senate.

Do you have any explanation for how on earth this makes sense to you?
Why can’t they pass a simple bill with 2k checks. It’s simple.

The only explanation I gather is projection. Just because republicans don’t give a rat’s ass about helping people or fighting COVID doesn’t mean democrats don’t either.
15 dollar minimum wage kills more jobs than creates. And I’ve already said I support a stand alone 2k check in a Covid Bill. It’s not just me, a lot of Republicans do I clouding Josh Hawley. 
#42
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
You're actually wrong about this. Democrats do want the bill to pass, they just want the bill to pass while also appeasing the fringe ultra-rich corporate lobbyists demanding a minimum wage to destroy their competition.
I meant a stand alone Covid Bill lol. There’s bipartisan support for that in the 2k checks, but ofc they have to poison it
#43
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
read post #40

#44
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
The reality is that the government is run de facto by an oligarch of unaffiliated lobbyists beholden to neither political party.

It's neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually deciding if people can get 2000 dollar COVID LOCKDOWN checks.
#45
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
1. The political agenda is disproportionately focused on business issues — not the needs of the public. Policymakers increasingly spend their time on the issues that matter to business groups. Left off the table are the concerns of broader sectors of the population. (cough Covid checks)

2. Corporations get $4.4 trillion in federal contracts and subsidies. A 2014 Sunlight Foundation report found that lobbying earns corporations a huge return on investment: “for every dollar spent on influencing politics, the nation’s most politically active corporations received $760 from the government.” In other words, taxpayer money is being redirected to the highest-spending business groups.

3. It’s harder to change the status quo — unless you’ve got big business on your side. The policy environment is crowded and competitive, with each group lobbying for its own interests. In order for one group to break through the noise and push its policies through the legislature, it typically needs vast financial resources — an easier feat for corporations and business or trade associations than for public interest groups.

4. Policy is more complex and confusing — which helps special interests hide regressive policies from the public. As legislators try to meet the policy demands of a wide array of business lobbyists, the major legislation that does get passed “is increasingly an incoherent set of compromises necessary to buy the support of a wide range of particular interests.” (A clear case in point is the Affordable Care Act, which ultimately provided $1 trillion in new revenue to insurance companies, largely in the form of subsidies.) Complexity in legislation undermines broad public understanding of policies – and bills drafted by interest groups are particularly (perhaps purposefully) complex. In California, for example, group-sponsored bills are between 27 and 32% longer than non-sponsored bills.

As policy gets more complex and confusing, lawmakers can more easily hide special-interest giveaways from the public. As scholar Steven Teles wrote in National Affairs, “The complexity and incoherence of our government often make it difficult for us to understand just what that government is doing, and among the practices it most frequently hides from view is the growing tendency of public policy to redistribute resources upward to the wealthy and the organized at the expense of the poorer and less organized.”

In sum, wealthy interests have skewed the policymaking process in their favor, resulting in distorted policy outcomes that fail to serve the public interest.

#46
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
How tf is context relevant to this when Biden, Warnock, and Ossoff word for word said they support 2000 dollar checks in people’s pockets.
Let’s try an analogy

Imagine a married couple disagree on how much to give their kids as an allowance. One says $100 and the other says $25 so they give their kids $25 and continue discussing whether it should be $100... deciding it should be $100 doesn’t mean you give them $100 on top of the $25 they already got.

It literally is because two Democratic Senators have already said they will vote Nay if 15 dollar minimum wage is a part of it. It’s literally dumb af to move to a vote when you know you don’t have enough votes.
And Lindsay Graham said he was off the Trump train. It turns out politicians don’t always stand by what they said they were going to do. I know, shocking.

Why can’t they pass a simple bill with 2k checks. It’s simple.
They can, they want more and see this as an opportunity to get it. What is so difficult about that? What is it about that that is so hard for you to believe that you take it as proof that democrats do not want the bill to pass?
#47
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Double_R
This is a shameful way to run away from my contentions and claim i didnt address your post
#48
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Dr.Franklin
that's not true at all. the "process" is a sham, it is just used as an attempt for hateful sick people in congress to attack a President AFTER he already served

if donald trump was treated normally, he would be in the office again
If Donald Trump acted normally, he would be treated normally.

Trump just spent the past few months claiming that he won an election where his opponent had 7 million more votes and won the electoral college by the exact same margin that Trump spent 4 years calling a landslide victory. Then when the people he riled up over those few months attacked the US Capitol, he sends out an "I told you so" tweet telling all of us to "remember this day". I can only imagine what you would be saying if Hillary did that.

And that was just the finale. It only scratches the surface of the record this man has amassed over the past 4 years. Right wingers talk about Trump derangement syndrome, that's just comical. The derangement is watching all of this and thinking anything other than this man should be convicted and barred from running for office again.
#49
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Double_R
trump DID act normal, he was a normal person like everyone else, the media obsessed over him

Trump just spent the past few months claiming that he won an election where his opponent had 7 million more votes and won the electoral college by the exact same margin that Trump spent 4 years calling a landslide victory
literally a lie, the election was obviously stolen, democrats call election fraud on republicans but never they think they can do it, they can

Then when the people he riled up over those few months attacked the US Capitol, he sends out an "I told you so" tweet telling all of us to "remember this day". I can only imagine what you would be saying if Hillary did that.

again, he never incited a riot, it was planned over Facebook without Trump. To remember the day means to remember the peaceful protestors there

And that was just the finale. It only scratches the surface of the record this man has amassed over the past 4 years. Right wingers talk about Trump derangement syndrome, that's just comical. The derangement is watching all of this and thinking anything other than this man should be convicted and barred from running for office again.
TDS was 100% accurate when it comes to how the media and dems treated Trump, he was a good leader but a threat to the establishment. Trump was a hero and how could people not vote for him? Look at the quality of life inconveniences under Biden