General Discussion

Wounded Bear

(63,787 posts)

31. Meh. More "purity" politics nonsense. We won.

Thu Jun 1, 2023, 08:32 AM

Jun 2023

Most of these folks would have voted Yes if needed. I wouldn't care much if my Rep was on this list.

We won. Nuff said.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

89 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Democratic "No" votes on the Debt Limit agreement (46) [View all] brooklynite Jun 2023 OP

Personally claudette Jun 2023 #1

Why, because they are progressives? gab13by13 Jun 2023 #4

No claudette Jun 2023 #13

Unity to win in 2024 IS needed, I agree. But people Laura PourMeADrink Jun 2023 #17

A conscience that makes you want to destroy the economy? iemanja Jun 2023 #42

Some of Democrats voting may have voted their conscience. Most probably voted as cowards. onenote Jun 2023 #43

That's nonsense, actually. yardwork Jun 2023 #58

How is it brave to vote against a bill that you would support if your vote mattered? onenote Jun 2023 #59

I agree bravery doesn't have much to do with it. I Laura PourMeADrink Jun 2023 #65

Manchin and Sinema were there treestar Jun 2023 #24

The point is this is what was possible. Otherwise we would go over the debt ceiling cliff. This is Demsrule86 Jun 2023 #34

This is just politics. I'm sure we have the votes. yardwork Jun 2023 #9

OP said it could open up the agreement though treestar Jun 2023 #25

The agreement can not be opened up period. There isn't time...not a single amendment can be Demsrule86 Jun 2023 #36

The media love their narrative of "Democrats in disarray!!" yardwork Jun 2023 #54

Rep. Jayapal was clear that she would have voted Yes if her vote was necessary for it to pass. femmedem Jun 2023 #12

That's a claudette Jun 2023 #14

That's excellent politics. That's setting us up for more wins. yardwork Jun 2023 #16

Ty.. It's also Strategic for future Cha Jun 2023 #64

what would unity accomplish, exactly? fishwax Jun 2023 #72

Maybe claudette Jun 2023 #73

because the no vote preserves the party's ability to negotiate in the future fishwax Jun 2023 #76

Exactly, if these votes had been needed to pass the bill, Deminpenn Jun 2023 #20

If he can't, that could bring it mathematically closer treestar Jun 2023 #26

Exactly. And our power builds as McCarthy's falls. yardwork Jun 2023 #55

I actually agree with that...and while I was initially annoyed by this, I truly believe every Demsrule86 Jun 2023 #37

But claudette Jun 2023 #75

So she didn't really have a deep principled objection to the legislation. onenote Jun 2023 #44

I think she has a deep, principled commitment to getting the best deal possible for her constituents yardwork Jun 2023 #56

So she thought that voting no would strengthen the bill? onenote Jun 2023 #57

Her no vote prevented the Republicans from making the bill even worse. yardwork Jun 2023 #60

How? The deal was struck. The bill wasn't going to be amended on the floor. onenote Jun 2023 #62

because the threat of democratic no votes forced mccarthy closer to Biden's position fishwax Jun 2023 #78

So its about future negotiations? We'll see how that turns out. onenote Jun 2023 #79

it's about getting practical things done, rather than purely symbolic unity fishwax Jun 2023 #80

Again, we got something done. And the final vote on the bill wouldn't have changed that. onenote Jun 2023 #81

a unanimous dem vote would have destroyed mccarthy as speaker fishwax Jun 2023 #82

Voting claudette Jun 2023 #71

sure it is fishwax Jun 2023 #77

Why wouldn't he? claudette Jun 2023 #83

you really think McCarthy would be happy with a deal that AOC and Bernie Sanders were in favor of? fishwax Jun 2023 #84

I'm really sorry claudette Jun 2023 #85

I don't get where you're finding that logic fishwax Jun 2023 #86

I did give claudette Jun 2023 #87

Ah, virtue signaling who doesn't love that EX500rider Jun 2023 #50

Sorta like NYers who voted for Jill Stein Polybius Jun 2023 #67

👍 claudette Jun 2023 #88

Lawrence O'Donnell explains why the 46 House Democrats who voted No actually strengthen Biden's hand Celerity Jun 2023 #61

Very cool. Thanks for this. Joinfortmill Jun 2023 #2

Most of my favorite Dems - gives us great negotiating power for the Budget - Rock On!! walkingman Jun 2023 #3

They will soon be put the test gab13by13 Jun 2023 #5

A no vote for this legislation makes zero sense. honest.abe Jun 2023 #6

That's not how politics works. yardwork Jun 2023 #15

Still makes no sense. This is different. honest.abe Jun 2023 #18

Why is it differenet? Because it's not Manchin or Simena? Autumn Jun 2023 #19

Because its clearly a yes or no option, yes to avoid default, no to accept a default. honest.abe Jun 2023 #21

All votes are a yes or no option. What's the difference with these people voting no? Autumn Jun 2023 #23

As I said. this is different because there is no other reasonable more liberal option.. honest.abe Jun 2023 #27

There were other options. As for making Biden look like he didn't do enough to Autumn Jun 2023 #29

Those options were considered by President Biden and dismissed. honest.abe Jun 2023 #30

And that part is on him, it was his choice. The Republicans have been saying there had to be cuts Autumn Jun 2023 #32

I trust his judgement. Dont you?? honest.abe Jun 2023 #33

Trust has nothing to do with it. Trust isn't going to help the poor with those cuts to SNAP. Autumn Jun 2023 #35

What inthewind21 Jun 2023 #68

Options like the 14th amendment or minting a trillion dollar coin or discharge petition. honest.abe Jun 2023 #74

We the voters gave Biden a very weak hand when we gave the Republicans a majority. yardwork Jun 2023 #47

We? You got a mouse in your pocket? I don't need to be told to vote, I've never missed an election. Autumn Jun 2023 #52

Well inthewind21 Jun 2023 #69

Good math. Every voter has one vote. Autumn Jun 2023 #70

I don't think it is different either Autumn. There is a tradition in both houses of allowing folks Demsrule86 Jun 2023 #38

And we won't have a default. That's been worked out. yardwork Jun 2023 #46

Perhaps but it just seems like a no brainer to vote for this legislation. honest.abe Jun 2023 #51

Actually, it a very big deal. Doing it this way kept the damage to a minimum. yardwork Jun 2023 #53

But if their vote was needed to pass it, then they'd abandon their constituents? onenote Jun 2023 #45

It's just a good negotiation strategy. yardwork Jun 2023 #48

I'm with you claudette Jun 2023 #89

Think there is something going on in the Dem caucus Darwins_Retriever Jun 2023 #7

Voting "no" on Rules is standard for the opposition Party. brooklynite Jun 2023 #8

Two running for CA's senate seat voted no, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee. Hortensis Jun 2023 #10

obviously these Democrats would have voted yes if their votes were needed for passage. dem4decades Jun 2023 #11

This was actually the perfect scenario for Dems Deminpenn Jun 2023 #22

If it is just symbolic, they aren't improving anything treestar Jun 2023 #28

That is not really true. The reason we don't have the House is the complete fuck up that was Demsrule86 Jun 2023 #40

Complete fuck up in North Carolina in 2022, too. yardwork Jun 2023 #49

definitely could pay more attention treestar Jun 2023 #63

Meh. More "purity" politics nonsense. We won. Wounded Bear Jun 2023 #31

Exactly - no doubt, they are all loyal Dems trying to make this nation better. walkingman Jun 2023 #39

Like I said although I was initially taken aback, I think what you say is true. Demsrule86 Jun 2023 #41

yup n/t fishwax Jun 2023 #66