Deplorable Democrats!

[JackLuis]

Here are the 8 Democrats who just joined GOP to vote down Sanders' $15 minimum wage amendment

Sen. Bernie Sanders' last-ditch effort to re-attach a $15 minimum wage provision to the Senate coronavirus relief package failed Friday morning after 8 members of the Democratic caucus joined all 50 Republicans in voting down the Vermont senator's amendment.

"Are you on the side of the working people in America who desperately need a raise? Or are you on the side of the wealthy and the powerful who want to continue exploiting their workers and paying starvation wages? It ain't more complicated than that."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders

Those who voted against Sanders' amendment were Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Angus King (I-Maine.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.).

Deplorable Deamonrats!

 

[Funit]

13 years and 21 thousand posts. Jackluis, another cunt loser who needs to get a life - and fast.

 

[Veroe]

They should be primaried with this as a core complaint of their challengers.

 

[phrodeau]

Maybe they just pushed the wrong buttons.

 

[butters]

as i understand the reasoning, it's not that they are against it--just that its inclusion in the bill would be against the 'rules' of the senate and so the bill on the whole might fail because of that. rather, they'd prefer to see the push for the $15 ph addressed as a separate issue.

i have no idea which would have been best for getting it passed into law, so can't really make a judgement on it. is it more likely to pass separately, as there are some republicans whose voters are very for this, or is it less likely once the big relief bill has already passed as the excuse will be (from the no-voters) that too much money's already been spent?

 

[JackLuis]

And yet much of the money in the last "Relief" bill has not been spent!

You don't see that in the Defense bills!

 

[KeithD]

And yet much of the money in the last "Relief" bill has not been spent!

Under the previous "do nothing" "administration."

 

[phrodeau]

as i understand the reasoning, it's not that they are against it--just that its inclusion in the bill would be against the 'rules' of the senate and so the bill on the whole might fail because of that. rather, they'd prefer to see the push for the $15 ph addressed as a separate issue.

i have no idea which would have been best for getting it passed into law, so can't really make a judgement on it. is it more likely to pass separately, as there are some republicans whose voters are very for this, or is it less likely once the big relief bill has already passed as the excuse will be (from the no-voters) that too much money's already been spent?

The $15 minimum wage provision was removed because it doesn’t have an impact on the budget. The government wouldn’t spend anything more with a minimum wage increase.

It will be harder to pass on its own, because it would be subject to filibuster.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

I'm surprised to see Tester on the list.

 

[Lazaran]

The $15 minimum wage provision was removed because it doesn’t have an impact on the budget. The government wouldn’t spend anything more with a minimum wage increase.

It will be harder to pass on its own, because it would be subject to filibuster.

Yeah, it shouldn't really be included in the stimulus bill.

That being said, I think it would serve Democrats well to rebrand the "$15 minimum wage". It is really an incremental increase in the minimum wage over five years. It would be an easier sell if they called it "the progressive minimum wage" and phased it in over seven years with a $1.25 increase per year.

It would reduce the initial sticker shock, yet still return a higher wage on the back end.

It would also give businesses time to gradually raise prices or adjust their business models.

 

[pointless]

as i understand the reasoning, it's not that they are against it--just that its inclusion in the bill would be against the 'rules' of the senate and so the bill on the whole might fail because of that. rather, they'd prefer to see the push for the $15 ph addressed as a separate issue.

i have no idea which would have been best for getting it passed into law, so can't really make a judgement on it. is it more likely to pass separately, as there are some republicans whose voters are very for this, or is it less likely once the big relief bill has already passed as the excuse will be (from the no-voters) that too much money's already been spent?

that's a nonsense argument. they used the same kind of argument to kill gay marriage back in the day. it's just a trick to avoid the issue and hope everyone forgets about it.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

It really doesn't matter what price-fixing Congress does with wages, the minimum wage will always be the same as it's always been: $0/hr.

As an automation engineer, I'm all in favor if raising the MW, though. It's essentially a full-employment act for guys like me.

 

[Lazaran]

.
Pud Spanker must have just got out of its post election commitment to a mental health facility for clinical depression, and is busy making up for lost time by vomitting right wing bullshit all over the PB.

Welcome back.....LOSER.

 

[BluesDriver66]

Framing this debacle as only 8 Democrats is disingenuous. This is how the Democratic party operates. This is their desired outcome as a party.

These 8 Democrats will remain in good standing in the party and will receive unlimited support for their next election and will also oppose any pro-worker candidates who will challenge them.

This is their job. To pretend to hold progressive Democratic principals then vote with conservative Republicans whenever needed. It's the bait and switch game that Democrats have played for years and apparently works like a charm.

Democrats here bitch and complain when someone says there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. The marketing is different but the results are the same. Endless war, increased military spending, no universal health care, outsourced jobs, depressed wages, housing crisis, homelessness, and anything else that actually matters a damn.

 

[Lazaran]

Framing this debacle as only 8 Democrats is disingenuous. This is how the Democratic party operates. This is their desired outcome as a party.

These 8 Democrats will remain in good standing in the party and will receive unlimited support for their next election and will also oppose any pro-worker candidates who will challenge them.

This is their job. To pretend to hold progressive Democratic principals then vote with conservative Republicans whenever needed. It's the bait and switch game that Democrats have played for years and apparently works like a charm.

Democrats here bitch and complain when someone says there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. The marketing is different but the results are the same. Endless war, increased military spending, no universal health care, outsourced jobs, depressed wages, housing crisis, homelessness, and anything else that actually matters a damn.

I would say there was a $1.3 trillion difference between Democrats and republicans, just in the stimulus bill.

Yes, there are several democrats in vulnerable seats that do not have the luxury to play in the far left sand box.

Of course it would be much better to have them lose their seats to republicans, just like it was better for Hillary to lose to Trump.

Susan Sarandon was wrong, and so are you.

 

[BluesDriver66]

I would say there was a $1.3 trillion difference between Democrats and republicans, just in the stimulus bill.

Yes, there are several democrats in vulnerable seats that do not have the luxury to play in the far left sand box.

Of course it would be much better to have them lose their seats to republicans, just like it was better for Hillary to lose to Trump.

Susan Sarandon was wrong, and so are you.

Total bullshit. Either you have principals and goals and works towards them or you do not. No other party fields candidates that oppose their stated philosophy. Republicans do not run liberal candidates California. Libertarians do not run progressive candidates in Portland. Green Party does not run right wing conservatives in the South.

If you have to betray your core beliefs to win seats that means you don't have the courage of your convictions. You surrender before the battle begins and indicate to voters your core philosophy is bullshit because you refuse to even argue it's merits.

Those seats are vulnerable because Democrats refuse to fight for them. By design. They will oppose all progressive candidates by design, in favor of right wing conservatives uniformly. This is a losing strategy, by design. No other entity invites the opposition into their ranks and expects to win.

 

[Lazaran]

Total bullshit. Either you have principals and goals and works towards them or you do not. No other party fields candidates that oppose their stated philosophy. Republicans do not run liberal candidates California. Libertarians do not run progressive candidates in Portland. Green Party does not run right wing conservatives in the South.

If you have to betray your core beliefs to win seats that means you don't have the courage of your convictions. You surrender before the battle begins and indicate to voters your core philosophy is bullshit because you refuse to even argue it's merits.

Those seats are vulnerable because Democrats refuse to fight for them. By design. They will oppose all progressive candidates by design, in favor of right wing conservatives uniformly. This is a losing strategy, by design. No other entity invites the opposition into their ranks and expects to win.

OK Susan.......

 

[BluesDriver66]

OK Susan.......

Completely non-responsive. I'll take that as you have no response that would make any logical sense. Maybe some convoluted argument where losing is really winning or fairness must be extended to right wingers, or being adults in the room means continuous appeasement to Republicans on important issues. But nothing that will excuse the fact that Democrats oppose progressive candidates uniformly and give aid and support to right wingers in their own party that time after time sink progressive legislation when it's needed most.

 

[KeithD]

Umm, it's more that you're too ridiculous to take seriously.

 

[BluesDriver66]

Umm, it's more that you're too ridiculous to take seriously.

No. You have no response so you deflect. It's obvious to anyone who can read.

Democrats support right wing conservative candidates who routinely sink important progressive legislation that Democrats claim to want passed.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be for progressive policies but support right wing conservative candidates who routinely vote against them.

 

[phrodeau]

No. You have no response so you deflect. It's obvious to anyone who can read.

Democrats support right wing conservative candidates who routinely sink important progressive legislation that Democrats claim to want passed.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be for progressive policies but support right wing conservative candidates who routinely vote against them.

You say that there’s division within the Democratic Party, and others say that Democrats are in lockstep pushing their agenda. One or the other might be true, but what’s blatantly apparent is the deep division currently splitting the Republican Party.

 

[BluesDriver66]

You say that there’s division within the Democratic Party, and others say that Democrats are in lockstep pushing their agenda. One or the other might be true, but what’s blatantly apparent is the deep division currently splitting the Republican Party.

Republicans and Democrats answer to same corporate pay masters. Deep divisions in the Republican party might mean something to talking heads on cable television but in the real world, to the man on the street, nothing changes.

Endless war, increased military spending, opposition to universal health care, transfer of wealth from working class to the rich, etc. are constant. I couldn't care less about the individual personalities who are up or down, who's in, who's out.

If the Republican party dissolved tomorrow the Democrats will still be for endless war, increased military spending, opposition to universal health care, transfer of wealth from working class to the rich.

I guess these party divisions are fun to talk about for political junkies, palace intrigue and all. As far as real people with real problems that need to be addressed it's absolutely meaningless.

 

[phrodeau]

And I thought you wanted to discuss division within political parties. Silly me.

 

[Champakian]

Did you hear what your senile old President declared?

The recently passed legislation with NO Republican votes was "bipartisan."



You sure picked a winner...

 

[Dribble]

Did you hear what your senile old President declared?

The recently passed legislation with NO Republican votes was "bipartisan."



You sure picked a winner...

At least the candidate i voted for won. How did yours do?