Biden's America

[DevoHusker]

3 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

And 2+2=4. So what? Bernie never said otherwise. The article is a strawman argument against something that isn't being said.

 

A lot of times I think that I have been told 2+2=5, but never believed it 

 

It is what was unsaid that the article discusses. It is a logical issue. Did you read it?

[FrantzHardySwag]

14 hours ago, nic said:

Not sure if Quinnipiac is a right or left wing polling outfit. At this rate he’s going to get Trump re-elected. That will make country explode. 

 

The president’s approval rating stands at just 38%, with disapproval at 53% in a Quinnipiac University survey released on Wednesday. That’s down from a 42%-50% approval/disapproval rating for Biden in a survey Quinnipiac University conducted last month.

I highly doubt Biden or Trump will be on the next presidential election ballot. 

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

A lot of times I think that I have been told 2+2=5, but never believed it 

 

It is what was unsaid that the article discusses. It is a logical issue. Did you read it?

I read it. The article is nonsense. Make a case against the bill or against the politics being used to get the votes, but setting up a strawman of "what was unsaid" is just that - an argument against stuff that no one is saying. Go back and read what Bernie is actually saying: there's 2 outliers in the Dem party opposing the bill and the Dem party goals.

[DevoHusker]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I read it. The article is nonsense. Make a case against the bill or against the politics being used to get the votes, but setting up a strawman of "what was unsaid" is just that - an argument against stuff that no one is saying. Go back and read what Bernie is actually saying: there's 2 outliers in the Dem party opposing the bill and the Dem party goals.

 

You are entitled to that opinion. I think you are looking at it wrong. The 2 "outliers" are with the majority position on the issue. You can choose not to accept that, but it remains a fact. 

[BigRedBuster]

13 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I read it. The article is nonsense. Make a case against the bill or against the politics being used to get the votes, but setting up a strawman of "what was unsaid" is just that - an argument against stuff that no one is saying. Go back and read what Bernie is actually saying: there's 2 outliers in the Dem party opposing the bill and the Dem party goals.

It's criticizing two members for doing what the majority of Americans want. Stop just following your party because, it's your party and think for yourself.

[RedDenver]

Just now, DevoHusker said:

 

You are entitled to that opinion. I think you are looking at it wrong. The 2 "outliers" are with the majority position on the issue. You can choose not to accept that, but it remains a fact. 

Again, it's a fact that Bernie isn't talking about. Here's Bernie's statements:

 

Do you see anywhere in there where Bernie says that 48 is a majority of the Senate? Well, let's see what the author then wrote based on these statements:

Quote

 

These are basic facts with which a longtime member of the country's most prestigious legislative body should be well familiar. So when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), a member of the Senate since 2007, suggests that "two people" are somehow preventing 48 others from getting what they want, he's not only demonstrating a lack of basic math skills (which, given Sanders' role as the head of the Budget Committee, might explain a lot about America's fiscal situation).

 

He's also saying that he doesn't quite understand how this whole democracy thing works.

 

Yeah, that's not at all what Bernie is saying. In fact, Bernie is correct that 2 Senators could thwart the will of 48 Senators - and the whole reason that is true is because Bernie understands how majority voting works (aka 52>48). The digs at Bernie's math skills and not understanding democracy are extremely telling that this article is a hit piece and not really written to inform or educate.

 

But's let's look at the author's conclusion:

Quote

That's why some of what Sanders and other progressives are doing right now is so disheartening. Some right-wing windbags might fantasize about doing away with America's representative government, but Sanders is the one literally proposing that an actual piece of legislation should be able to be passed by 48 senators over the objections of 52 others. That's just not a majority.

Looks at Bernie's statements again. No where does he say that 48 senators should be able to pass a bill, it's just more nonsense from the author (and especially ridiculous because the author even uses "literally").

[RedDenver]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It's criticizing two members for doing what the majority of Americans want. Stop just following your party because, it's your party and think for yourself.

The majority of Americans support the bill based on all the polling I've seen, so it's actually the reverse of what you're arguing, but regardless the article isn't even claiming that as it's entirely based on the numbers in the senate. It's trying to pretend that Bernie is either against majority voting or doesn't understand math.

 

And as I said before, there's arguments to be made for and against the 2 Dem outlier votes, including that they don't necessarily need to vote in lock step with their party. But the article takes the lazy approach of mischaracterizing the argument and setting up a ridiculous strawman instead of arguing the actual issues.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

The majority of Americans support the bill based on all the polling I've seen, so it's actually the reverse of what you're arguing,

No, it's not.  My comment didn't say anything about who supports the bill.  It's about party politics.  

 

Which, most Americans are tired of.

[RedDenver]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

No, it's not.  My comment didn't say anything about who supports the bill. 

 

Then I guess I don't understand what you meant by:

33 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It's criticizing two members for doing what the majority of Americans want. Stop just following your party because, it's your party and think for yourself.

 

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It's about party politics.  

 

Which, most Americans are tired of.

And yes, a political fight about passing a bill is indeed about politics including party politics.

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, RedDenver said:

Then I guess I don't understand what you meant by:

Read the sentence after what you bolded.  I say it pretty clearly.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Read the sentence after what you bolded.  I say it pretty clearly.

Back up. The two sentences together are saying that Manchin and Sinema and doing what the majority of Americans want and not just following their party, correct? I don't know how else to read that, it's why I'm asking for clarification.

 

It's pretty clear the 2 are going against their own party, but it's entirely possible they are also going against what the majority of Americans want.

[DevoHusker]

"2 senators cannot be allowed to defeat what 48 senators and 210 House members want."

Two Senators are not defeating what 48 want. 52 Senators are. The 210 House members is an irrelevant number in this context, because the issue is in the Senate...where there are 100 Senators...

You are making this too difficult. If you have problems with the author's wording, I cannot help you there. Contact him.

[BigRedBuster]

17 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Back up. The two sentences together are saying that Manchin and Sinema and doing what the majority of Americans want and not just following their party, correct? I don't know how else to read that, it's why I'm asking for clarification.

It's pretty simple.

[Archy1221]

17 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

As pointed out, 48 is not the majority. 51 is.

Math has been hard for many on this board the past two days. 

[RedDenver]

14 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

"2 senators cannot be allowed to defeat what 48 senators and 210 House members want."

Two Senators are not defeating what 48 want. 52 Senators are. The 210 House members is an irrelevant number in this context, because the issue is in the Senate...where there are 100 Senators...

The 48 senators and 210 house members are all Dems. The 2 outliers are both Dems. The entire point of what Bernie is saying (whether you agree or disagree) is that 2 Dem members are thwarting the will of the rest of the party. That's why he's bringing up house members. And it's clear he's talking about the Dem party, even Forbes understands that:

 

And if Bernie really thought it 48 vs 2, then he'd be claiming the bill is going pass, right? The fact that he understands that those 2 votes make up part of the 52 vote majority in the senate is entirely the point. Bernie clearly understands the math and the majority voting. He's making an argument to pressure the 2 Dem outliers to change their votes, which again there are arguments for and against Bernie's tactics.

 

14 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

You are making this too difficult. If you have problems with the author's wording, I cannot help you there. Contact him.

It's not his wording, it's the entire point he's making is BS. 

Quote

 

he's not only demonstrating a lack of basic math skills (which, given Sanders' role as the head of the Budget Committee, might explain a lot about America's fiscal situation).

 

He's also saying that he doesn't quite understand how this whole democracy thing works. And even that wouldn't be so bad if Sanders were a college professor or a plumber, but it is at least a little bit unsettling because Sanders happens to be one of the people that some Americans have chosen to represent them in a democratic form of government.

Yes, great points article. Bernie clearly doesn't understand the math or majority voting despite it being quite clear that he's trying to change 2 votes.

 

The author then goes on to admit he's full of s#!t on the above points despite then making the same points in the conclusion of the article and again in the tweet. Then tries to claim Bernie is making this into an anti-democratic plot:

Quote

 

Sanders probably knows this, of course. But the continued attempts to frame opposition to the reconciliation bill as some sort of anti-democratic plot against the rightful majority is revealing on a few different levels.

 

 

But if the article was really just about wording, then the author wouldn't have theis conclusion at the end:

Quote

That's why some of what Sanders and other progressives are doing right now is so disheartening. Some right-wing windbags might fantasize about doing away with America's representative government, but Sanders is the one literally proposing that an actual piece of legislation should be able to be passed by 48 senators over the objections of 52 others. That's just not a majority.

No, it's actually the author who is literally fabricating this. Bernie is not at all saying that the bill should pass with 48 for and 52 opposed, and everything he's doing makes that abundantly clear.