Jump to content

I think Pelosi is making a big mistake


Recommended Posts

Re: the two infrastructure bills.  The first one $(1.5T) just got bipartisan approval from the senate group.  The larger $3.5T one that Biden wants to go through budget reconciliation - Pelosi is saying they must be passed together.

I honestly don't get her strategery here.  Why not get one signed into law and then do the other one right behind it.  By linking the larger one that no R has gotten on board with and will most likely pass with 51 D votes (including Kamala's tie breaker) threatens to scuttle both.  I could very easily see Bitch McConnell saying no to the first one if the D's are going to force the larger one down their throats.  So why make them not only linked, but why try to push them through at the same time.  

It just doesn't make sense to me.  If the R senators who worked on getting the first one done get pissed off at the other one being linked, I have ZERO doubt they would try to kill both.  What is Nance's play here??

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Re: the two infrastructure bills.  The first one $(1.5T) just got bipartisan approval from the senate group.  The larger $3.5T one that Biden wants to go through budget reconciliation - Pelosi is saying they must be passed together.

I honestly don't get her strategery here.  Why not get one signed into law and then do the other one right behind it.  By linking the larger one that no R has gotten on board with and will most likely pass with 51 D votes (including Kamala's tie breaker) threatens to scuttle both.  I could very easily see Bitch McConnell saying no to the first one if the D's are going to force the larger one down their throats.  So why make them not only linked, but why try to push them through at the same time.  

It just doesn't make sense to me.  If the R senators who worked on getting the first one done get pissed off at the other one being linked, I have ZERO doubt they would try to kill both.  What is Nance's play here??

Drag it out so that Team R! vocally, publicly, with fanfare on Fox, kills it just before the midterms.

A lot of Team R! gets replaced and business goes forward just a little more smoothly, it gets a little easier to push the insurrectionists back under their rocks.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Drag it out so that Team R! vocally, publicly, with fanfare on Fox, kills it just before the midterms.

A lot of Team R! gets replaced and business goes forward just a little more smoothly, it gets a little easier to push the insurrectionists back under their rocks.

- DSK

But if the bipartisan one has a chance of passing, and it seems it does...... why would you drag it out just for optics??  That makes no sense.  If Pelosi delinked the two bills, she could conceivably get both passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

But if the bipartisan one has a chance of passing, and it seems it does...... why would you drag it out just for optics??  That makes no sense.  If Pelosi delinked the two bills, she could conceivably get both passed.

Inconceivable. This isn't Pelosi's first rodeo. 

iu-27.jpeg

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ishmael said:

Inconceivable. This isn't Pelosi's first rodeo. 

No, I get that.  I'd just like to understand her game.  Is she bluffing with a 7-2 offsuit or is she sitting on a heart flush?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

No, I get that.  I'd just like to understand her game.  Is she bluffing with a 7-2 offsuit or is she sitting on a heart flush?

Five aces. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

But if the bipartisan one has a chance of passing, and it seems it does...... why would you drag it out just for optics??  That makes no sense.  If Pelosi delinked the two bills, she could conceivably get both passed.

Drag it out just for optics?

 

What do you think politics is about?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:
13 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Five aces. 

I don't buy it.  Elaborate please.  

She must have something up her sleeve that she isn't laying on the table at the moment. She may be an old bitch, but she's a smart old bitch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:
7 minutes ago, Burning Man said:
16 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Five aces. 

I don't buy it.  Elaborate please.  

She must have something up her sleeve that she isn't laying on the table at the moment. She may be an old bitch, but she's a smart old bitch. 

I thicke she mabey relyeng on facte that nobodey hase caulled herre oute foire bening a smarte bitch.  Men cane be to sippelle moeste times....         :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

But if the bipartisan one has a chance of passing, and it seems it does...... why would you drag it out just for optics??  That makes no sense.  If Pelosi delinked the two bills, she could conceivably get both passed.

Unlikely.

Once the baby bill is passed, the repubs will say they did a bipartisan infrastructure bill. Thing is It's like paying 10% down on a car you never intend to pay off. You drive it until the repo man comes at midnight. Then you go plonk down another 10% on another car.

Republicans used to be responsible (for the mostpart) people. But ever since 1980, that's just gone out the window. Bullshit your way through one problem after another. Deflect. Deny. Deregulate. Defile.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nancy may well be making a strategic miscalculation but this is not her first rodeo.  I have to assume she is in contact, if not coordination, with the WH.  Lots of moving parts and this could all fall apart.  But I think I’ll trust her instincts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

fixed

No, I really meant entertainment. Power comes with the job, but governance is the job description. Gingrich was the first to realize (ok, I'm light on the history of Speakers before say, Tip O'Neill) that entertainment was what the elk really wanted. Shitstain merely turned the entertainment up to 11 and consequently was ranked dead last for the mechanics of administration. He still got 74M votes because the elk, they do want their entertainment.

The Republican Speakers realized they don't have to do anything. They're just there to prevent anything getting done while complaining about the situation. (And cutting taxes for the rich). Pretty kush job. Seriously, they chose guys like Hastert (went to prison for diddling) and Ryan (only job, driving a Wienermobile).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Since Gingrich. And add blame to your list.

Gingrich realized that governance wasn't as important as entertainment.

Like many members of the party of family values (Funny how they don't use that anymore) Getting tight pussy is more important than your wedding vows.

Newty Newt promised 3 times to love, honor and respect, until death do they part, his 3 wives..... At least he's doing better than Rudy, who was banging his cousin before divorcing one of his many wives, and then marrying said cousin before divorcing her while banging someone else.

 Like Trump who was banging Marla while married to Ivanna, banging Melania while married to Marla, and banging Stormy, and McDougal while Melania was recovering from child birth of Barron....

 Not saying Democrats and Indies are all saints, but at lest they don't preach from the pulpit with a slut under the dias giving blow jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrleft8 said:

Like many members of the party of family values (Funny how they don't use that anymore) Getting tight pussy is more important than your wedding vows.

Newty Newt promised 3 times to love, honor and respect, until death do they part, his 3 wives..... At least he's doing better than Rudy, who was banging his cousin before divorcing one of his many wives, and then marrying said cousin before divorcing her while banging someone else.

 Like Trump who was banging Marla while married to Ivanna, banging Melania while married to Marla, and banging Stormy, and McDougal while Melania was recovering from child birth of Barron....

 Not saying Democrats and Indies are all saints, but at lest they don't preach from the pulpit with a slut under the dias giving blow jobs.

The Rethugs misread the Old Testament.  They thought it said “bang, “ not “begat.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

The Rethugs misread the Old Testament.  They thought it said “bang, “ not “begat.”

Thing is.... When the mistress gets "Begat"en.... Abortion is important..... And a fundamental right.... In private. But when other women get begat..... It's important that those zygotes have full human rights as US citizens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

Thing is.... When the mistress gets "Begat"en.... Abortion is important..... And a fundamental right.... In private. But when other women get begat..... It's important that those zygotes have full human rights as US citizens.

Once more the old adage, don’t do as I do, do as I say; is confirmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Re: the two infrastructure bills.  The first one $(1.5T) just got bipartisan approval from the senate group.  The larger $3.5T one that Biden wants to go through budget reconciliation - Pelosi is saying they must be passed together.

I honestly don't get her strategery here.  Why not get one signed into law and then do the other one right behind it.  By linking the larger one that no R has gotten on board with and will most likely pass with 51 D votes (including Kamala's tie breaker) threatens to scuttle both.  I could very easily see Bitch McConnell saying no to the first one if the D's are going to force the larger one down their throats.  So why make them not only linked, but why try to push them through at the same time.  

It just doesn't make sense to me.  If the R senators who worked on getting the first one done get pissed off at the other one being linked, I have ZERO doubt they would try to kill both.  What is Nance's play here??

I’m not seeing that they’re linked anymore just that that the larger bill would be passed through reconciliation which won’t happen with Manchineel and Siena waffling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I’m not seeing that they’re linked anymore just that that the larger bill would be passed through reconciliation which won’t happen with Manchineel and Siena waffling.

Talk about the fruit of the poisonous tree!

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

No, I really meant entertainment. Power comes with the job, but governance is the job description. Gingrich was the first to realize (ok, I'm light on the history of Speakers before say, Tip O'Neill) that entertainment was what the elk really wanted. Shitstain merely turned the entertainment up to 11 and consequently was ranked dead last for the mechanics of administration. He still got 74M votes because the elk, they do want their entertainment.

The Republican Speakers realized they don't have to do anything. They're just there to prevent anything getting done while complaining about the situation. (And cutting taxes for the rich). Pretty kush job. Seriously, they chose guys like Hastert (went to prison for diddling) and Ryan (only job, driving a Wienermobile).

 

and the purpose of the entertainment is?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

and the purpose of the entertainment is?

To distract the rubes while their pockets are being picked and future is being bartered away

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Like many members of the party of family values (Funny how they don't use that anymore) Getting tight pussy is more important than your wedding vows.

Newty Newt promised 3 times to love, honor and respect, until death do they part, his 3 wives..... At least he's doing better than Rudy, who was banging his cousin before divorcing one of his many wives, and then marrying said cousin before divorcing her while banging someone else.

 Like Trump who was banging Marla while married to Ivanna, banging Melania while married to Marla, and banging Stormy, and McDougal while Melania was recovering from child birth of Barron....

 Not saying Democrats and Indies are all saints, but at lest they don't preach from the pulpit with a slut under the dias giving blow jobs.

 

1 minute ago, jerseyguy said:

To distract the rubes while their pockets are being picked and future is being bartered away

 

all those things, yet they still remain in power.

because they have the power to control the narrative.

 

 

dont be fooled by the distractions, its about power and keeping it, pure and similar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

and the purpose of the entertainment is?

What's the purpose of heroin? The elk are addicted to their entertainment. If you want another phrase, they want to own the libs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

What's the purpose of heroin? The elk are addicted to their entertainment. If you want another phrase, they want to own the libs.

are the addictions of the masses something to be treated or something to be encouraged?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

are the addictions of the masses something to be treated or something to be encouraged?

To answer your question clearly, these addictions are the weakness of democracy and something to be discouraged.

Gingrich taught conservative politicians how to take advantage of these addictions. Once you're an addict or a drunk, you're hooked for the duration. The best you can do is go cold turkey. You can't socially drink or shoot up.

This is an old problem. The Founders were well versed in the history of the Roman Republic and the Greeks. The Founders feared populism because once that's triggered, demagogues will end the republic. Seriously, we had a guy recommending injecting a disinfectant and shoving a UV lamp up your ass to prevent a disease, and 74M voted to re-elect him. This is not small government less regulation. This is for entertainment. This is populism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

To answer your question clearly, these addictions are the weakness of democracy and something to be discouraged.

Gingrich taught conservative politicians how to take advantage of these addictions. Once you're an addict or a drunk, you're hooked for the duration. The best you can do is go cold turkey. You can't socially drink or shoot up.

This is an old problem. The Founders were well versed in the history of the Roman Republic and the Greeks. The Founders feared populism because once that's triggered, demagogues will end the republic. Seriously, we had a guy recommending injecting a disinfectant and shoving a UV lamp up your ass to prevent a disease, and 74M voted to re-elect him. This is not small government less regulation. This is for entertainment. This is populism.

And OWNING THA LIBZ !!!

Don't underestimate hatred of an artificially puffed-up enemy, a scapegoat, as a means of controlling the masses. There was a Greek dictator/orator named Demosthenes who was one of the first and probably one of the most skilled. There were also a lot of Renaissance-era European republics which were all short lived and extremely volatile, which the Founding Fathers all would have been familiar with and all would have been eager to avoid similar histories.

The one thing that all Republicans have in common, nowadays, is that they fukkin' hate-hate-HATE the goddam faggot Democrats. You see it here, in the posts of those who haven't abandoned The Cause (and some who are trying to), almost every day. They don't know why they hate libby-rulls and Demz, they just do!

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Gingrich taught conservative politicians how to take advantage of these addictions

addictions have been taken advantage of forever.

because they help to maintain the status quo.

 

7 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

This is an old problem. The Founders were well versed in the history of the Roman Republic and the Greeks. The Founders feared populism because once that's triggered, demagogues will end the republic. Seriously, we had a guy recommending injecting a disinfectant and shoving a UV lamp up your ass to prevent a disease, and 74M voted to re-elect him. This is not small government less regulation. This is for entertainment. This is populism.

 

the founders were smart and also hopeful.

both things are important in leaders, but more important in voters.

 

and of course its populism! isn't that the point?

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The one thing that all Republicans Democrats have in common, nowadays, is that they fukkin' hate-hate-HATE the goddam faggot Democrats Republicans.

FIFY. :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Re: the two infrastructure bills.  The first one $(1.5T) just got bipartisan approval from the senate group.  The larger $3.5T one that Biden wants to go through budget reconciliation - Pelosi is saying they must be passed together.

I honestly don't get her strategery here.  Why not get one signed into law and then do the other one right behind it.  By linking the larger one that no R has gotten on board with and will most likely pass with 51 D votes (including Kamala's tie breaker) threatens to scuttle both.  I could very easily see Bitch McConnell saying no to the first one if the D's are going to force the larger one down their throats.  So why make them not only linked, but why try to push them through at the same time.  

It just doesn't make sense to me.  If the R senators who worked on getting the first one done get pissed off at the other one being linked, I have ZERO doubt they would try to kill both.  What is Nance's play here??

It's not that simple.  First, they are close to passing a $1T in a straight up transportation and broadband infrastructure bipartisan bill.  That's fucking huge, bigger than the National defense budget and targeted to pretty much only those items.  That's a huge win when dealing with half the congress who will only spend that kind of coin on tax cuts or defense.  It's a huge win for Buttegieg, Biden and Pelosi.  Put the money in the bank, put the points on the board, take the win.  But then they can haggle over the reconciliation bill price after.  It's at $3.5T total now, that's likely a threat, but the whole reconciliation part of it is that they can pass parts of it separately with a 51 majority.  So take the big win and then chip away on the families part of it.  Fuck, the R's will think they win if it's pared down to another $1T and it's really another huge chunk for progressive initiatives.  The Bernies and AOC's will always pull for more, but they are very smart and in touch with the WH and pelosi and know that any number with a $T in it is pretty fucking good.  And no one will say, "yeah, but they wanted $4.5T so they are losers", when the R's will have to go back to the fiscal express and explain why they owned the libs by "only" spending" a couple Tril.  And when rednecks start getting hired and start getting broadband in their doublewides so they can stream faux news while they can ditch their 6 kids to a free pre-school, they'll think it's all pretty fucking good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

It's not that simple.  First, they are close to passing a $1T in a straight up transportation and broadband infrastructure bipartisan bill.  That's fucking huge, bigger than the National defense budget and targeted to pretty much only those items.  That's a huge win when dealing with half the congress who will only spend that kind of coin on tax cuts or defense.  It's a huge win for Buttegieg, Biden and Pelosi.  Put the money in the bank, put the points on the board, take the win.  But then they can haggle over the reconciliation bill price after.  It's at $3.5T total now, that's likely a threat, but the whole reconciliation part of it is that they can pass parts of it separately with a 51 majority.  So take the big win and then chip away on the families part of it.  Fuck, the R's will think they win if it's pared down to another $1T and it's really another huge chunk for progressive initiatives.  The Bernies and AOC's will always pull for more, but they are very smart and in touch with the WH and pelosi and know that any number with a $T in it is pretty fucking good.  And no one will say, "yeah, but they wanted $4.5T so they are losers", when the R's will have to go back to the fiscal express and explain why they owned the libs by "only" spending" a couple Tril.  And when rednecks start getting hired and start getting broadband in their doublewides so they can stream faux news while they can ditch their 6 kids to a free pre-school, they'll think it's all pretty fucking good.

School bad. Free good..... Hmmmm Free beer and crack with pre-school? No? No good. Me want some free pork rinds and Mountain dew.... No? Free breakfast for lil'uns? No! Me take care of me lil'uns! Me serve dem Ramen and mountain dew!!!! Fuck you and health food! Me got both teeth! Me smart!

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, thanks to Roundthebuoys who knows way more about this than I do,  BUT

pretty sure the bill is gonna be a big disappointment for those of use who chafe under the rule of our corporate overlords . . 

The Dems caved on additional funds for the IRS which means that the oligarchy will be able to continue to steal a trillion per year by tax cheating. 

That would have easily paid the freight for the rest of the Bill. 

(To be fair, the GOPPER R-eich insisted on that change. They are dead set against efforts to rein in tax cheating by the wealthy.) 

BTW, some of y'all well be relieved to hear that the IRS is still fired up about tracking down and punishing restaurant wait staff who fudge taxes on their tips. 

What a country

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Pretty sure the bill is gonna be a big disappointment 

for those of use who chafe under the rule of our corporate overlords . . 

The Dems caved on additional funds for the IRS 

which means that the oligarchy will be able to steal a trillion per year in tax cheating. 

That would have easily paid the freight for the rest of the Bill. 

(To be fair, the GOPPER R-eich insisted on that change. They are dead set against 

efforts to rein in tax cheating by the wealthy.) 

BTW, some of y'all well be glad to hear that the IRS is still able to track down and punish restaurant wait staff who fudge taxes on their tips. 

What a country

Meh, taxing crypto is good.  Any exchange of money should be taxed as regular income.  Especially Capital Gains and inheritance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roundthebuoys said:

Meh, taxing crypto is good.  Any exchange of money should be taxed as regular income.  Especially Capital Gains and inheritance.

See my edit - not trying to be a suck-up in the slightest. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I honestly don't get her strategy here. 

When you look at the electoral math, she's playing the best hand she has.

The bipartisan deal isn't that bipartisan.  Its essentially being sherpa-ed along by a half a dozen or so republicans in the senate who either aren't running or have seats they're confident they can keep.  That's not exactly strong championship and offers at best tepid influence in the house.  And, under the hood, a lot of that money is 'repurposed'.  As big as it sounds, its actually pretty close to the same 'infrastructure' package that's literally been discussed since Obama's 2nd term with a bit more money to cover inflation and some new problems.  Roads and bridges don't go anywhere, they just get older.

People like AOC already voted in favor of the first stimulus bill back in 2020, which may have been 'necessary', but it also inflated the stock market, made Amazon bigger than Standard Oil, and poured shit tons of temporary money into all kinds of programs, etc.  But its all temporary and will fade over the next 3-5 years.  The progressive caucus wants permanent changes, not temporary stimulus.   Why should they take hard votes for things that can just get wiped away?  That's not what they want.  They're progressives, not pragmatists.

The second package is the carrot.  That's the systemic change that they're hoping for.  Take the vote on Infrastructure 1, and we'll give you your shot with reconciliation.  Without the progressive caucus, there probably aren't enough votes to pass the infrastructure bill in the house.  I think that's a bit of fuzzy math personally - I think there's enough republicans that they COULD get Infrastructure 1 through without the progressives - but that would require McCarthy at some level to buy in - at least stop fighting it - and he's not there.  He's still shilling for Trump and is content to let Pelosi take all the risks.

Practically speaking, there aren't enough votes for Pelosi to stay speaker without the progressive caucus so even if she got Infrastructure 1 without them, she'd be done.   As Boehner so often points out - "A leader without followers is simply a man taking a walk".  I don't think she wants to be done yet so she's doing everything she can to hold her coalition, including tying these two votes, no matter what that ultimately means in the Senate.  That's not her problem.

The reconciliation package is going to define the end phase of Boomertopia.  This is likely the defining vote before we open up Millennialville in 2028.  It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Re: the two infrastructure bills.  The first one $(1.5T) just got bipartisan approval from the senate group.  The larger $3.5T one that Biden wants to go through budget reconciliation - Pelosi is saying they must be passed together.

I honestly don't get her strategery here.  Why not get one signed into law and then do the other one right behind it.  By linking the larger one that no R has gotten on board with and will most likely pass with 51 D votes (including Kamala's tie breaker) threatens to scuttle both.  I could very easily see Bitch McConnell saying no to the first one if the D's are going to force the larger one down their throats.  So why make them not only linked, but why try to push them through at the same time.  

It just doesn't make sense to me.  If the R senators who worked on getting the first one done get pissed off at the other one being linked, I have ZERO doubt they would try to kill both.  What is Nance's play here??

Easy, embarrass the republicans, and keep the progressives happy for a while.

It's a lot like what Cornyn, Boehner and McConnell did in order to keep the Tea Party in line. I just hope it doesn't blow up in her face like it did for them, and we wind up with a progressive Trump taking over the Dem party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2021 at 5:15 PM, Ishmael said:

She must have something up her sleeve that she isn't laying on the table at the moment. She may be an old bitch, but she's a smart old bitch. 

No.

Quote

Pelosi is exhibiting her trademark level of confusion and condescension,

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/08/05/make-people-happy-erase-student-debt

She's a fucking tool.

https://theintercept.com/2021/08/05/student-debt-cancellation-nancy-pelosi/

https://scheerpost.com/2021/07/17/nancy-and-paul-pelosi-making-millions-in-stock-trades-in-companies-she-actively-regulates/

https://www.counterpunch.org/2008/03/14/vichy-democrats-pelosi-and-the-politics-of-collaboration/

1920px-President-elect_Donald_J._Trump_a

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2021 at 8:24 PM, roundthebuoys said:

It's not that simple.  First, they are close to passing a $1T in a straight up transportation and broadband infrastructure bipartisan bill.  That's fucking huge, bigger than the National defense budget and targeted to pretty much only those items.  That's a huge win when dealing with half the congress who will only spend that kind of coin on tax cuts or defense.  It's a huge win for Buttegieg, Biden and Pelosi.  Put the money in the bank, put the points on the board, take the win.  But then they can haggle over the reconciliation bill price after.  It's at $3.5T total now, that's likely a threat, but the whole reconciliation part of it is that they can pass parts of it separately with a 51 majority.  So take the big win and then chip away on the families part of it.  Fuck, the R's will think they win if it's pared down to another $1T and it's really another huge chunk for progressive initiatives.  The Bernies and AOC's will always pull for more, but they are very smart and in touch with the WH and pelosi and know that any number with a $T in it is pretty fucking good.  And no one will say, "yeah, but they wanted $4.5T so they are losers", when the R's will have to go back to the fiscal express and explain why they owned the libs by "only" spending" a couple Tril.  And when rednecks start getting hired and start getting broadband in their doublewides so they can stream faux news while they can ditch their 6 kids to a free pre-school, they'll think it's all pretty fucking good.

You've basically just made my case FOR me.  Thanks.  My entire OP was about "take the win now, put the points on the board" and THEN once ink has dried, then and only then start doing the bigger budget bill with your 51% majority.  But to do them together knowing 0 R's are on board with it might as well be waiving a red flag in front of a bull.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pelosi's bill by itself wouldn't be passed by the Senate. It would be filibustered. So separating it out is stupid and single cell amoeba understand that. Pelosi wants it passed and she is saying that has to be guaranteed; so it will be passed via Senate reconciliation. Moreover, Biden, Pelosi + Schumer have the experience of the Obama years. Consequently, this comes down to Republicans get input into the bipartisan bill and they get input into the Democratic bill but don't get to filibuster it.

BTW, Pelosi knows that Republicans will campaign against this as they did with Obamacare and Clinton's budget. She lost her Speakership as did Foley. That's how that works. She'll still do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2021 at 10:58 AM, Burning Man said:

You've basically just made my case FOR me.  Thanks.  My entire OP was about "take the win now, put the points on the board" and THEN once ink has dried, then and only then start doing the bigger budget bill with your 51% majority.  But to do them together knowing 0 R's are on board with it might as well be waiving a red flag in front of a bull.

And with that.  19 R's voted for it including BOTH my senators in Idaho.  I just passed out for awhile in disbelief, but hey I'll fucking take it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...