I’m not sure where the confusion is. My whole point in that those two shits (Manchin and Sinema) did not vote with the party and blocked legislation. They worked against progressive legislation. Many of the bills had progressive policies that were taken out because of those two idiots.
Right. We voted for Democrats. We gave Democrats the seats they needed. They didn’t vote in the lockstep Democrats demand from their voters.
I’m for progressive policies
But you make excuses for the party that always finds the no votes to kill them.
but even I recognize the Democratic party was held hostage by these two shits. I thought I was clear???
Held hostage. Sure. Oh no. Just enough Democrats voted against legislation that party leadership didn’t want. There are always enough Manchins.
I don’t know what your argument is any more. Sinema and Manchin were always moderates. Democrats can’t perform miracles if they don’t have enough votes. Do you have any suggestions how they could have done it with just a slim majority held back by two moderates? What’s your plan? I’m listening.
I don’t understand. Did I lobby any insults at you at any point?
I just asked how could any meaningful legislation pass without a super majority and you accuse me of lying. My thesis hasn’t changed since post #1. Do you have any suggestions for how the democratic party could have effected change without a super majority? I’m really curious. We’d all like to know.
Right. We voted for Democrats. We gave Democrats the seats they needed. They didn’t vote in the lockstep Democrats demand from their voters.
But you make excuses for the party that always finds the no votes to kill them.
Held hostage. Sure. Oh no. Just enough Democrats voted against legislation that party leadership didn’t want. There are always enough Manchins.
Now selectively forget how to read again.
I don’t know what your argument is any more. Sinema and Manchin were always moderates. Democrats can’t perform miracles if they don’t have enough votes. Do you have any suggestions how they could have done it with just a slim majority held back by two moderates? What’s your plan? I’m listening.
This entire conversation has shown that this is a lie.
I don’t understand. Did I lobby any insults at you at any point?
I just asked how could any meaningful legislation pass without a super majority and you accuse me of lying. My thesis hasn’t changed since post #1. Do you have any suggestions for how the democratic party could have effected change without a super majority? I’m really curious. We’d all like to know.
We gave Democrats the 50 seats they needed to kill the filibuster forever.
I said you were lying about listening. Because you weren’t listening.