Can Bipartisanship Survive in Today's Political Climate?

[Hume]

What? Can't answer the question?

I just did. I told you that you don't know shit about politics.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I just did. I told you that you don't know shit about politics.

What does that drivel have to do with listing three moderate Democrats by name? Can't you do that?

 

[Hume]

What does that drivel have to do with listing three moderate Democrats by name? Can't you do that?

Clearly you are a very poor reader.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Name three Democrats you think are moderates.

You wouldn't know most of them...they are friends and relatives...or local Democratic Party officials.

For national moderate Democrats...I suspect you would still demand that they be labelled "radical" in order to maintain that you are correct.

Here is a list of moderate and core Democrats in the House...compiled by analyzing voting patterns by 538.

The 8 Types Of Democrats And Republicans In The House

We analyzed voting patterns to see if members actually vote with their caucuses.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

Much higher than rated "progressive"...and none rated "radical."

I wish there were a few more radical Democrats to combat the berserker Republican nut cases.

 

[moon]

Im still for you, hamas ball sucker, to tell us how many zionists did your lovers kill on Oct 7

Tch, tch

'The western media establishment has studiously averted their gaze from Israeli reports that a proportion of those killed on 7 October
were not victims of Hamas but of the Israeli army’s notorious “Hannibal procedure”, a protocol to kill fellow Israelis rather than let them
be taken captive.'

The message of Israel’s torture chambers is directed at all of us, not just Palestinians

‘Black sites’ are about reminding those who have been colonised and enslaved of a simple lesson: resistance is futile

www.middleeasteye.net

 

[Yakuda]

Tch, tch

'The western media establishment has studiously averted their gaze from Israeli reports that a proportion of those killed on 7 October
were not victims of Hamas but of the Israeli army’s notorious “Hannibal procedure”, a protocol to kill fellow Israelis rather than let them
be taken captive.'

The message of Israel’s torture chambers is directed at all of us, not just Palestinians

‘Black sites’ are about reminding those who have been colonised and enslaved of a simple lesson: resistance is futile

www.middleeasteye.net

How many Zionist did Hamas kill on Oct 7?

 

[moon]

How many Zionist did Hamas kill on Oct 7?

Check it out, you repetitious loser

'The western media establishment has studiously averted their gaze from Israeli reports that a proportion of those killed on 7 October
were not victims of Hamas but of the Israeli army’s notorious “Hannibal procedure”, a protocol to kill fellow Israelis rather than let them
be taken captive.'

The message of Israel’s torture chambers is directed at all of us, not just Palestinians

‘Black sites’ are about reminding those who have been colonised and enslaved of a simple lesson: resistance is futile

www.middleeasteye.net

 

[Yakuda]

Check it out, you repetitious loser

'The western media establishment has studiously averted their gaze from Israeli reports that a proportion of those killed on 7 October
were not victims of Hamas but of the Israeli army’s notorious “Hannibal procedure”, a protocol to kill fellow Israelis rather than let them
be taken captive.'

The message of Israel’s torture chambers is directed at all of us, not just Palestinians

‘Black sites’ are about reminding those who have been colonised and enslaved of a simple lesson: resistance is futile

www.middleeasteye.net

How many zionists did Hamas kill on oct 7 ball licker?

 

[moon]

How many zionists did Hamas kill on oct 7 ball licker?

" Ball licker " ? Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Haw, haw...................................haw.

 

[Yakuda]

" Ball licker " ? Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Haw, haw...................................haw.

How many Zionist did Hamas kill on oct 7?

 

[Guno צְבִי]

The simple answer is no. There is no compromising with the Left, and in particular, the radical Left. The Democrat party is now a party of the Left.

Like the bi partisan immigration bill that Trump told them to shut down

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You wouldn't know most of them...they are friends and relatives...or local Democratic Party officials.

For national moderate Democrats...I suspect you would still demand that they be labelled "radical" in order to maintain that you are correct.

Here is a list of moderate and core Democrats in the House...compiled by analyzing voting patterns by 538.

The 8 Types Of Democrats And Republicans In The House

We analyzed voting patterns to see if members actually vote with their caucuses.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

Much higher than rated "progressive"...and none rated "radical."

I wish there were a few more radical Democrats to combat the berserker Republican nut cases.

Like the bi partisan immigration bill that Trump told them to shut down

The "bi-partisan" immigration bill was a travesty.

Here's what it does:

Adds 1500 new customs and immigration officers
Adds 4300 new asylum hearing officers
Increases detention beds by 10,000
Adds 100 immigration judges
Adds 100 new "detection machines" to scan for drugs etc.
Funds $1.4 billion to help cities deal with "migrants."

FACT SHEET: Impact of Bipartisan Border Agreement Funding on Border Operations | The White House

Today, President Biden is traveling to Brownsville, Texas to meet with U.S. Border Patrol agents, law enforcement, frontline personnel, and local leaders

www.whitehouse.gov

The original senate bill is here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2

Things the White House circular doesn't mention is it provides a path to illegals getting jobs, being legalized, and citizenship. I wonder why...

It did NOTHING to secure the border. All it did was make processing of illegals into the US more streamlined. It also provides for what amounts to amnesty.

So, of course it should have been opposed.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

no, bipartisanship is dead and was never meant to do anything more than convince a brainwashed majority of American morons that something was in their best interests. As evidenced by most of the people on this board, a representation of the American population is too easily led around by their noses to believe that the other side wants to destroy democracy or freedom, and they swallow it like a two bit whore in the red light district.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The "bi-partisan" immigration bill was a travesty.

Here's what it does:

Adds 1500 new customs and immigration officers
Adds 4300 new asylum hearing officers
Increases detention beds by 10,000
Adds 100 immigration judges
Adds 100 new "detection machines" to scan for drugs etc.
Funds $1.4 billion to help cities deal with "migrants."

FACT SHEET: Impact of Bipartisan Border Agreement Funding on Border Operations | The White House

Today, President Biden is traveling to Brownsville, Texas to meet with U.S. Border Patrol agents, law enforcement, frontline personnel, and local leaders

www.whitehouse.gov

The original senate bill is here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2

Things the White House circular doesn't mention is it provides a path to illegals getting jobs, being legalized, and citizenship. I wonder why...

It did NOTHING to secure the border. All it did was make processing of illegals into the US more streamlined. It also provides for what amounts to amnesty.

So, of course it should have been opposed.

You quoted me...and then did not comment. Are you saying that you asked me for something and agree that I provided it for you?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You quoted me...and then did not comment. Are you saying that you asked me for something and agree that I provided it for you?

You made an argument that the immigration bill was bipartisan, and implied by that that it was a reasonable piece of legislation and in doing so, applied an irrelevant appeal to popularity fallacy. That is, you implied, Members of both parties voted for it, so it must have been a good and reasonable bill...

You then drug Trump into the discussion and implied that his opposition was unreasonable and by extension, implied that the Republican party was unreasonable because they didn't support a piece of--what you deemed--bipartisan legislation.

I then posted up the White House circular summary of the bill and the actual bill listing the important contents of that legislation and argued that the bill itself was unreasonable and that Republicans had a genuine reason and interest in NOT supporting it. I implied the bill was extremist and very much a piece of Leftist legislation because it included a large amount of social spending (aka welfare etc.) on a criminal class (illegal immigrants) and even such widely opposed measures as legalization of their status and a path to citizenship.

All of that points to Trump's and most Republican's opposition as reasonable and even a more moderate position than the Democrat extremist one of legalization of illegal immigrants in the US. So, Trump's having them "shut it down" isn't extremist or radical, nor is it unreasonable. The Democrats started from a radical position, got some--not much but some--Republican support, then tried, as you did, to make an argument to moderation fallacy out of the issue.

 

[Taichiliberal]

With increasing political division, can bipartisanship survive, and what would it take to foster more collaborative governance in Washington?

Put it this way; you had a bipartisan bill from the House regarding our Southern border, but it was killed by the leader of the MAGA/GOP. If they lose the majority in the House and Senate in the next series of elections, you may see more bipartisanship in the near future (hope springs eternal).

 

[ExpressLane]

While more government transparency and accountability are essential for fostering bipartisanship, the challenge also lies in overcoming deeply entrenched political divisions. How do you think citizens can effectively hold government officials accountable, and what role should the public play in promoting collaborative governance?

Maybe if a few of the worst of them were hanged the others might fall in line.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You made an argument that the immigration bill was bipartisan, and implied by that that it was a reasonable piece of legislation and in doing so, applied an irrelevant appeal to popularity fallacy. That is, you implied, Members of both parties voted for it, so it must have been a good and reasonable bill...

I never did anything of the sort.

My comments had nothing to do with the immigration bill.

You then drug Trump into the discussion and implied that his opposition was unreasonable and by extension, implied that the Republican party was unreasonable because they didn't support a piece of--what you deemed--bipartisan legislation.

I think you are mistaking me for someone else.

My comment had absolutely nothing to do with the immigration bill...and nothing about that bill was expressed or implied.

I then posted up the White House circular summary of the bill and the actual bill listing the important contents of that legislation and argued that the bill itself was unreasonable and that Republicans had a genuine reason and interest in NOT supporting it. I implied the bill was extremist and very much a piece of Leftist legislation because it included a large amount of social spending (aka welfare etc.) on a criminal class (illegal immigrants) and even such widely opposed measures as legalization of their status and a path to citizenship.

All of that points to Trump's and most Republican's opposition as reasonable and even a more moderate position than the Democrat extremist one of legalization of illegal immigrants in the US. So, Trump's having them "shut it down" isn't extremist or radical, nor is it unreasonable. The Democrats started from a radical position, got some--not much but some--Republican support, then tried, as you did, to make an argument to moderation fallacy out of the issue.

Okay.

But I never commented on the bill...nor implied anything about the bill.

If you can point to what you suppose to be the implications...I will address them.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I never did anything of the sort.

My comments had nothing to do with the immigration bill.



I think you are mistaking me for someone else.

My comment had absolutely nothing to do with the immigration bill...and nothing about that bill was expressed or implied.



Okay.

But I never commented on the bill...nor implied anything about the bill.

If you can point to what you suppose to be the implications...I will address them.

Your post seems to have slipped in and I didn't notice in making my reply as I was addressing guano, apologies.