Trump's Promises

[Pozzible]

Sorry to post another comment. I tried to edit the previous one but I took too much time. First, I didn’t mean you were missing two different points, I meant mixing two points. 

Then…

I don’t necessarily disagree with the concepts you’re expressing. However, you support each with one example. So we have to use specific examples to show how each party applies (or violates them).

Also, for me, it’s 4:00 in the morning, and I just don’t have the bandwidth to dig deep. 

[tobetrained]

@Pozzible Hopefully you got some sleep!

I'm taking about Democrats and the progressive wing in and of itself, across the last day or two of convos. By calling out that behavior there is no implied pro- Trump, MAGA, nor Republican stance. I was doing so in response to comment directed to me about the No Kings rally (see: way back to page one).

My point about radicalization included first hypocrisy. To your shutdown comments, go back and see how Dems spoke about past shutdowns and Republican behavior in real time back then. After that, consider if Dems living up to their own statements now, in and of themselves. 

My second point on radicalization is then rationalizing said hypocrisy. You're kinda doing that with the series of, "well they do it..." arguments -- I disagree with NONE of those, but that's not the point. On this one topic, Dems are hoping limit the political impact of the shutdown to their party and to appease their base with the healthcare push. But both parties can hold up any legislation claiming to help millions at any point in time, in their own view. It doesn't mean it's true nor does it always equal relevance (to said legislation, in and of itself).

[Rillion]

If Republicans don't want to compromise with Democrats they can change the rules which currently require they get 8 Democrats to vote for proceeding to a final vote (it would only by 7 but they can't even get all Republicans to agree to their CR). 

Right now they are basically saying we didn't consult you in crafting this bill and have not included a single thing you want in the bill, but you have to vote for it. In many prior shutdowns the party not providing votes was consulted and did get some of the things they wanted included but then demanded more. Here the Republicans have offered nothing. If they are not going to compromise on anything, they need to stop pretending they care about getting 60 votes and change the rules. 

[laguyinhou]

There are two choices: A. Healthcare subsidies go in like the Dems want or B. Your health insurance premiums-whether you have an exchange plan *OR* through work-will go up somewhere between 150% to 250% of what you're paying now.

So if you want that much more of your income to go to Healthcare, go ahead.

 

Edited 9 hours ago by laguyinhou
Hit post too quickly

[tobetrained]

I'll respond here just to return the convo back to the original question.

@Rillion whether you're implied details are true, it's ultimately based on using the 60-vote threshold driven by the filibuster (or threat of same) which gets us back to the previous hypocrisy discussion re: progressives push from 2021-23 to eliminate that -- which would have meant, in the very unlikely event of that effort working, that now Reps would not need 60-votes. I'll leave it there.

@laguyinhou right. and if Reps are so stupid as to pass legislation that will hurt so many in such a stark way, then let them. In democracies we solve differences through elections. We should NOT hold federal workers pay and livelihoods nor sometimes live-saving services hostage to politics. At least that's what Democrats said before.

And, if the truth of their legislation is so bad, as you say, those elections will have a clear winner.

In 2017, Trump's first term, the NJ and VA gubernatorial elections had Dems winning by 14pp in NJ and 9pp in VA. Those elections happen again in a couple weeks. To @nanana original post question, re: holding Trump accountable and by what metrics, those would be very obvious benchmarks.