(01-19-2021 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I don't think impeachment is the bone to throw, IMO. At some point, actions have consequences and you don't delay them because it may hurt peoples' feelings. Consequences are in place to discourage bad behavior in the future - do you disagree?
There is no way on God's green earth that Trump would be convicted of anything remotely close to a felony in a court of law... it is only in a political court where his comments could possibly convict him, and his trial in the House (in terms of actually considering evidence and hearing rebuttal as opposed to people simply giving speeches) lasted for less time than you or I would spend fighting a speeding ticket. I think depriving someone of the right to EVER run for public office and by extension, denying those who support his policies and positions the right to representation of their views is GROSSLY egregious relative to the crime. We give pedophiles and rapists more rights. I agree that actions have consequences, but such consequences of denying someone a fundamental Constitutional right (ANYONE can run for office) should require a whole lot more than political will and power...
ESPECIALLY when the very institution he (in the opinion of his supporters) is fighting is the government swamp itself. OF COURSE it's bipartisan, because the swamp isn't about a party. Its about power. We don't hold votes on any other Citizen, and as of today, Trump is just a citizen.
My serious question to you would be this... If 50.1% of the states and by extension, roughly half the population were of the opinion that someone as bombastic as Trump was the best choice for this nation... in other words, where this action would make any difference whatsoever... does that not tell you something about how much of this country feels about the people deciding this fate? If they don't, then what difference does this action make?
Having said all that, I said it was an obvious example... not remotely a requirement. If you have a better idea, please suggest it. Your broad generalizations of 'seeking compromise' or however else you want to phrase it is no different than any other activity for the past 200+ years... so it's not remotely special. I see what they're doing now as 100% an act of vengeance. Was he wrong? Absolutely... but what are you really accomplishing here? If your whole comment is about 'unity', especially with his supporters... then what about this is remotely unifying? It is by definition, cleaving.
Said differently... Trump supporters and Republicans are not remotely the same thing... so 'reaching across the aisle to Republicans' is NOT reaching across the aisle to Trump's voters. I believe that these actions are designed to drive a wedge between Trump voters and establishment Republicans. Biden will mostly be reaching across to other 'swamp' monsters (not my word, but I don't have a better way to describe them in a few words) or Republicans who were mostly elected by independent or swing voters from larger population bases.
Quote:Actively engaging Republicans in policy development, providing them opportunities to help shape decisions, being willing to compromise on laws, and one and on are ways to reach out to those you just defeated. And at the same time, those who were defeated need to make it clear that they are interested in compromising - after all, the Dems don't truly run the show in Congress (they can't ram through any legislation).
It seems to me that conservatives are always finding a way to put the burden on Dems for reaching across the aisle. The winners and the losers have to put their egos aside and come to the table - the more public they make that act, the better. I think the one key thing the winner CAN'T do is just ram through whatever they want without consulting the losing side.
Every comment you've made here is all 'whatabout'... and your own insecurities. I said nothing about the burden being solely on Democrats... I said nothing about Republicans virtues... That is all in your head.... Meanwhile, you absolutely tried to talk about Democrats as if they are bastions of virtue... telling me how Biden was already reaching out... which you later modified to it being your hope... If someone else here has said something, that's fine... take it up with them.. but you're responding to me and talking about 'conservatives'... which I have demonstrably not done at all.... but YOU have.
I also gave examples of ways to actively engage Republicans on policies including warp speed and $2,000... and as I said, there obviously were numerous parts of the ultimate $1.9 trillion proposal Biden has made that were part of the $1.9 trillion counter that Pelosi turned down.
Numerous options have been available even prior to day 1. You asked me if I was saying Biden wasn't already reaching out and the answer is yes, he is not. He may, but again, he won't be reaching out to Trump voters... ESPECIALLY if someone can never vote for Trump again.
Democrats don't have to reach out to Trump voters.... not remotely a requirement at all... but don't give me your 'calls for unity' and 'uniting the country' song and dance while you're actively seeking to deny people their right to vote in the future for their openly preferred candidate.
/
Biden-Harris Administration
