Elite NYC school publishes anti-racism manifesto

[Rhea]

Or perhaps everybody knows 'command' and 'control' when used for the US senate means '60 seat or higher majority' and I'm just too pig ignorant to know it.

The only pig headed thing is whether you decide to know it now or decide to continue not knowing it.

One thing that may be confusing you is that the misinformation put out by the GOP for the last 11 years has been exploiting this very language to undermine confidence in the Dem party. This is one of their gambits - to say “dems don’t believe this because they didn’t pass this in 2 years - they are not your friends!” When the truth is the Dems could not have passed it because of GOP filibuster.

The misinformation is deliberate and ongoing. The GOP will ALWAYS reference “2 years” to try to lay the story that Dems are not sincere in their beliefs. The Dems, keep bringing in the truth, that they were prevented from passing things. But for many listeners, the misinformation campaign is successful and they think Dems “didn’t have something on the table” because the GOP blocked them from passing it for two years.

It’s a clever strategy, and it works remarkably well. Many Republican and “independant” Americans actually believe that the Dems platform is something different than it is because of how the GOP describes it. It’s deceit, but... here we are.

 

[Toni]

People are genuinely trying to explain to you where your understanding is falling short.

Democratic control in common parlance means that the Democrats have a simple majority in whichever house one is discussing.

In order to ensure passage of Democratic proposals despite opposition by Republicans, a super majority or 60 Senators would be required. That would make the Senate filabuster-proof. BUT The senate alone cannot pass legislation into law. It requires approval of both houses of Congress and must be signed into law by the POTUS. If both houses pass a bill and the POTUS vetoes it, they may be able to over ride the veto.

Here are a couple of links. It's really a strategy game:

https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-ma...sident can approve the,the bill becomes a law.

Here's a more visual description:

https://hobnobblog.com/legislative-process-flowchart-from-the-congressional-deskbook/

Most voters vote based upon how a candidate stands on multiple issues (and how well they articulate their position)---plus likeability plus party affiliation.

I know how the American senate works.

Rhea rebuked me because she interpreted the word 'commanded' to mean 'filibuster-proof' and therefore I was wrong about Democrats having 'command' for two years. But I'm not wrong, because I did not mean 'commanded' to mean 'filibuster-proof' and Rhea simply assumed that I did. Would a synonym like 'control' have made the difference? Or perhaps everybody knows 'command' and 'control' when used for the US senate means '60 seat or higher majority' and I'm just too pig ignorant to know it.

1) It's apparent you do not really know how the Senate works. Or what the Senate is.

2) It is apparent that you do not really know or understand how the US Federal Government is structured or the roles of the various parts of the government.

3. It is apparent that you do not understand how a bill is passed into law.

Perhaps you do know or understand these things better than this discussion seems to show but your posts do not make that obvious.

I do think that you have been too pigheaded to recognize that there are people in this thread who really, really do know what they are talking about--and that you possess a cursory knowledge and less than cursory understanding and worse, refuse to actually consider that your knowledge and comprehension might be incomplete.

I don't fault you for not having a thorough understanding of American politics. I doubt very many Americans are conversant with Australian politics and even fewer have a thorough understanding.

I do think that you really need to consider why you post the threads that you do. It seems that you are more looking for a fight than seeking to understand or even actually discuss an issue. I could be wrong here. It's simply the impression I get, given how little credence you seem to be willing to give to the words of others with broader and deeper knowledge and understanding of a particular topic.

 

[Metaphor]

1) It's apparent you do not really know how the Senate works. Or what the Senate is.

2) It is apparent that you do not really know or understand how the US Federal Government is structured or the roles of the various parts of the government.

3. It is apparent that you do not understand how a bill is passed into law.

Sure luv. Point me to a factual error I've made that shows I 'do not really know' any of these things.

I do think that you really need to consider why you post the threads that you do. It seems that you are more looking for a fight than seeking to understand or even actually discuss an issue. I could be wrong here. It's simply the impression I get, given how little credence you seem to be willing to give to the words of others with broader and deeper knowledge and understanding of a particular topic.

I believe I said before I'm not interested in your unsolicited advice on my posting habits.

 

[Rhea]

Sure luv. Point me to a factual error I've made that shows I 'do not really know' any of these things.

Democrats commanded the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for two years from 2009, but Obama failed to create a single payer healthcare system, because single payer wasn't even an option on the table.

So a statement that says, “it must not have been on the table because they didn’t do it in the two years that they had ~whatever~” does not factually represent reality in America between 2009 and 2011. The “two years” and the “because it was not on the table” are both not true.

Anyway, I accept that you think you were not wrong. And it’s a derail anyway, and I am going to stop ading to it.
There’s the info if you wish to avoid statements about the DNC policy and the senate power structure that are not true.
Or not. I don’t care.

Back to a private school in NYC wanting to be anti-racist.

 

[Metaphor]

So a statement that says, “it must not have been on the table because they didn’t do it in the two years that they had ~whatever~” does not factually represent reality in America between 2009 and 2011. The “two years” and the “because it was not on the table” are both not true.

The two years is true. The Democrats controlled the House and Senate and Presidency. Nothing you can say can make it not true. That you don't consider a majority in the Senate 'controlling' is your problem and not mine. I know what I wrote and I know it's true.

And we also seem to have different ideas about what 'on the table' means. That, I suppose, is more subjective.

Anyway, I accept that you think you were not wrong. And it’s a derail anyway, and I am going to stop ading to it.

I hope so.

There’s the info if you wish to avoid statements about the DNC policy and the senate power structure that are not true.

I didn't say a single thing that was untrue about the Senate power structure. For fuck's sake, the media right now is discussing who will 'control' the senate in January, and whichever party it is they mean who will have a majority; they are not talking about a "filibuster-proof" majority.

 

[laughing dog]

I know how the American senate works.

Thinking that a majority that is less than filibuster proof is necessarily controlling is strong evidence you really don't know how the US Senate operates.

 

[Metaphor]

I know how the American senate works.

Thinking that a majority that is less than filibuster proof is necessarily controlling is strong evidence you really don't know how the US Senate operates.

Okay luv.

You and Rhea and Toni and Loren are quibbling over the use of a common term to describe control, power, majority, in an elected chamber.

In any other context, nobody would blink an eye at the use of any of those terms interchangeably. For fuck's sake, the debate about Georgia happening right now has news articles talking about 'control' of the chamber:

https://apnews.com/article/election...orgia-health-8c401263319702ac59e8b0d27f327a75

ATLANTA (AP) — Though still chasing his first victory, Jon Ossoff is no stranger to the pressure of campaigning in overtime — this time for one of two crucial U.S. Senate seats that will determine control of the chamber.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-senate.html

Both Republican senators in Georgia have been forced into runoff races against Democrats, contests that will determine control of the Senate after a six-year Republican majority.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/au...-historic-battle-for-control-of-the-us-senate

On 5 January, control over the US Senate will be decided by Georgia’s runoff, where the Republicans Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue face the Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff respectively in two races.

I expect you'll be writing strongly-worded emails to apnews, nytimes, and the guardian over their use of the word 'control' as synonymous with 'majority'.

The level of petty vindictiveness on this board is really cartoonishly over the top.

Rhea could easily have said:

The Democrats did control both chambers and the presidency as you say, but there was really only a four month window that they had any hope of passing the legislation - when they commanded a filibuster-proof majority in the senate.

But no. Instead I had to be told by the usual suspects to stay in my Australian lane.

 

[laughing dog]

Okay luv.

You and Rhea and Toni and Loren are quibbling over the use of a common term to describe control, power, majority, in an elected chamber.

You are the one used the term in order to make the point that the Democrats could have passed UHC - not me. Anyone familiar with US politics knows that a less than filibuster proof majority in the Senate is insufficient to pass anything controversial. Which means the Democrats could not have passed UHC in that time period. So your claim is factually incorrect.

Your citations use the term "control" to mean that the Democrats will have the majority in the Senate (with the VP Harris's vote) not that the Democrats will be able to muster sufficient numbers to override any filibuster. Again, that understanding would be second nature to anyone familiar with how the US Senate operates.

Of course, if the Democrats win both GA Senate seats and if they then eliminate the filibuster (or, at least, the procedural one), then "control" of the Senate will mean the ability to pass any legislation. But until then, your initial claim and subsequent defenses of your claim are strong evidence that you really don't understand how the US Senate works and that you are reluctant to improve your meager understanding about the subject.

The level of petty vindictiveness on this board is really cartoonishly over the top.

That one broke every irony meter in every time/space continuum.

 

[Trausti]

So, yeah, this Dalton thing. Kinda crazy.

 

[Metaphor]

You are the one used the term in order to make the point that the Democrats could have passed UHC - not me.

Actually my point was that the Democrats didn't have the political will to pass it, because the American people don't.

Anyone familiar with US politics knows that a less than filibuster proof majority in the Senate is insufficient to pass anything controversial. Which means the Democrats could not have passed UHC in that time period. So your claim is factually incorrect.

You said:

4 months is not sufficient time to get devise and pass a comprehensive overhaul of something as complicated and large as health care even with overwhelming support.

Yet they passed Obamacare in that window. Was that not a comprehensive overhaul?

Your citations use the term "control" to mean that the Democrats will have the majority in the Senate (with the VP Harris's vote) not that the Democrats will be able to muster sufficient numbers to override any filibuster. Again, that understanding would be second nature to anyone familiar with how the US Senate operates.

And I made no implication about using the term 'control' to mean 'filibuster-proof majority'. It is nowhere in my text.

Of course, if the Democrats win both GA Senate seats and if they then eliminate the filibuster (or, at least, the procedural one), then "control" of the Senate will mean the ability to pass any legislation.

I hope they can. Then we'll see if the Democrats actually believe in single payer healthcare.

 

[Toni]

1) It's apparent you do not really know how the Senate works. Or what the Senate is.

2) It is apparent that you do not really know or understand how the US Federal Government is structured or the roles of the various parts of the government.

3. It is apparent that you do not understand how a bill is passed into law.

Sure luv. Point me to a factual error I've made that shows I 'do not really know' any of these things.

Rhea's already pointed out errors in your understanding. I realize you can google stuff and parrot it but that doesn't mean you understand it. It can be explained to you but you have to actually do the understanding part.

I do think that you really need to consider why you post the threads that you do. It seems that you are more looking for a fight than seeking to understand or even actually discuss an issue. I could be wrong here. It's simply the impression I get, given how little credence you seem to be willing to give to the words of others with broader and deeper knowledge and understanding of a particular topic.

I believe I said before I'm not interested in your unsolicited advice on my posting habits.

And I'm not interested in your unsolicited and ill informed discourse on the American political system. But here we are.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually my point was that the Democrats didn't have the political will to pass it, because the American people don't.

Then the number of months or years in "control" was irrelevant to your point.

Yet they passed Obamacare in that window. Was that not a comprehensive overhaul?

No., it was not.

And I made no implication about using the term 'control' to mean 'filibuster-proof majority'. It is nowhere in my text.

Then your text was pointless -something readers should take into account when taking the time to read your posts.

 

[ronburgundy]

I did not say I had [an issue with Dalton].

I didn't say I was concerned.

I don't think they [Dalton's proposed policies] are good. I think they are deeply problematic, in fact.

People on this board seem very interested in controlling what topics I post about. I don't know what your 'confusion' is about.

People aren't trying to control what you post. They are just confused by the fact that when they made the highly logical and evidence based inference that you object to such policies you engaged in a disingenuous pretense that you don't have any objections, only to voice those exact and accurately inferred objections in the next post."

 

[Rhea]

Okay luv.

You and Rhea and Toni and Loren are quibbling over the use of a common term to describe control, power, majority, in an elected chamber.

In any other context, nobody would blink an eye at the use of any of those terms interchangeably. For fuck's sake, the debate about Georgia happening right now has news articles talking about 'control' of the chamber:

Indeed it is nuanced, though most Americans do understand this and therefore, yes, they make a distinction bettween this sentate special election and the period of time beween 2009 and 2011. The Control that is being discussed now in he GA senate run off will determine who has majority in the committees, and more importantly, who owns the gavel. This is critical because this “control” is what is necessary to BLOCK legislation. It only takes 51 to block.

But you were talking about “commanding” the chamber in order to PASS legislation in the case of the ACA v Universal Health Care. And this is a different level of control. So your initial statemnt, as one about the ability to command the chamber to PASS legislation, Americans know needs to be 60 (or 67 if the President is of the other party). And we are giving you this information.

Rhea could easily have said:

The Democrats did control both chambers and the presidency as you say, but there was really only a four month window that they had any hope of passing the legislation - when they commanded a filibuster-proof majority in the senate.

Noted. Although the fact that the “they had two years” trope was deliberate misinformaton from the GOP for the purpose of undermining trust in the Democratic Party was part of the infornation you seemed to have wrong or missing.

But no. Instead I had to be told by the usual suspects to stay in my Australian lane.

On the contrary, you were given information because of factual errors in your post. Up to you if you are someone who listens when told your fly is down, or doubles down and spreads your legs to prove you don’t care.

 

[Metaphor]

Indeed it is nuanced, though most Americans do understand this and therefore, yes, they make a distinction bettween this sentate special election and the period of time beween 2009 and 2011. The Control that is being discussed now in he GA senate run off will determine who has majority in the committees, and more importantly, who owns the gavel. This is critical because this “control” is what is necessary to BLOCK legislation. It only takes 51 to block.

But you were talking about “commanding” the chamber in order to PASS legislation in the case of the ACA v Universal Health Care. And this is a different level of control. So your initial statemnt, as one about the ability to command the chamber to PASS legislation, Americans know needs to be 60 (or 67 if the President is of the other party). And we are giving you this information.

Oh, I'm so sorry. I didn't realise 'command' was not a synonym for 'control', and it was quite obvious that the word 'command' means 'filibuster proof majority', and you obviously know better than I do what I meant by the word 'command'.

Noted. Although the fact that the “they had two years” trope was deliberate misinformaton from the GOP for the purpose of undermining trust in the Democratic Party was part of the infornation you seemed to have wrong or missing.

They did have two years as majority in the house and senate during which a Democrat held the presidency.

On the contrary, you were given information because of factual errors in your post. Up to you if you are someone who listens when told your fly is down, or doubles down and spreads your legs to prove you don’t care.

I did not make any factual errors in my post. You made an error when you misread my mind to think I meant 'command' to mean 'filibuster proof majority'.

 

[Metaphor]

I did not say I had [an issue with Dalton].

I didn't say I was concerned.

I don't think they [Dalton's proposed policies] are good. I think they are deeply problematic, in fact.

People on this board seem very interested in controlling what topics I post about. I don't know what your 'confusion' is about.

People aren't trying to control what you post. They are just confused by the fact that when they made the highly logical and evidence based inference that you object to such policies you engaged in a disingenuous pretense that you don't have any objections, only to voice those exact and accurately inferred objections in the next post."

I didn't claim to be 'concerned'. I said I disagreed with the policies and found them deeply problematic; disagreeing with a policy isn't "concern". I hope that Dalton implements every single policy, and that is not disingenuous. I want them to do it.

 

[Metaphor]

Rhea's already pointed out errors in your understanding. I realize you can google stuff and parrot it but that doesn't mean you understand it. It can be explained to you but you have to actually do the understanding part.

Rhea did nothing of the sort.

Rhea decided, without evidence, that I did not understand the difference between a majority in the Senate and a filibuster-proof majority. Rhea did not point out any errors in my post. Rhea manufactured 'errors' from her misunderstanding of my post, and proceeded to 'educate' me about said 'errors'.

 

[Toni]

Rhea's already pointed out errors in your understanding. I realize you can google stuff and parrot it but that doesn't mean you understand it. It can be explained to you but you have to actually do the understanding part.

Rhea did nothing of the sort.

Rhea decided, without evidence, that I did not understand the difference between a majority in the Senate and a filibuster-proof majority. Rhea did not point out any errors in my post. Rhea manufactured 'errors' from her misunderstanding of my post, and proceeded to 'educate' me about said 'errors'.

We all read your posts, Metaphor. We saw the same evidence of the depth and breadth of your understanding as Rhea seems to have done. Thing is, I think Rhea was right. And I’m not the only one.

 

[laughing dog]

Rhea's already pointed out errors in your understanding. I realize you can google stuff and parrot it but that doesn't mean you understand it. It can be explained to you but you have to actually do the understanding part.

Rhea did nothing of the sort.

Rhea decided, without evidence, that I did not understand the difference between a majority in the Senate and a filibuster-proof majority.

The content of your post was sufficient evidence of your lack of knowledge about the operations of the US Senate, so that is yet another blatantly false claim of fact of yours.

 

[Metaphor]

Rhea's already pointed out errors in your understanding. I realize you can google stuff and parrot it but that doesn't mean you understand it. It can be explained to you but you have to actually do the understanding part.

Rhea did nothing of the sort.

Rhea decided, without evidence, that I did not understand the difference between a majority in the Senate and a filibuster-proof majority.

The content of your post was sufficient evidence of your lack of knowledge about the operations of the US Senate, so that is yet another blatantly false claim of fact of yours.

Okay luv.