#MoscowMitch & Trump's Other Enablers

[Deleted User 89]

if her numbers are even close to correct, mitch is worse than i thought

https://www.newsweek.com/ex-senator-cla ... ms-1478736

[DCHawk1]

if her numbers are even close to correct, mitch is better than i thought

https://www.newsweek.com/ex-senator-cla ... ms-1478736

The Senate is, by design, a brake on the popular will.

Besides, anybody who thinks Mitch is problematic but who loved Reid is an ideologue and a hypocrite.

[Deleted User 89]

guess it’s just wishful thinking then, wanting legislators to actually legislate

what are they doing with all their time, since they aren’t even talking about legislation that’s passed the house?

you gonna make another excuse for them and offer another whataboutism, DC?

[DCHawk1]

It's not an excuse. It's the reason the Senate exists.

The presumption that "doing something" = "doing something good" is naive at best.

[ousdahl]

my dad michhawk likes to beat the "do-nothing congress" drum.

When I ask what he thinks of the fact congress has passed plenty of bills that are sitting on Mitch's desk, he suddenly gets a lot more vague, and offers some vague condemnation of ThE sWaMp, while still being sure to levy the blame on the left.

it's the DEM's fault Mitch won't play nice, just like it's Cankles's fault we elected Trump!

[DCHawk1]

The Senate sat on a shitload of legislation from 2011-2015 too. But then, there was a GOP House and a Reid-led Democratic Senate, so Trad didn't care.

cUZ trUMp!

I think.

Personally, I'd prefer a do-nothing executive branch to a do-nothing Congress, but when I hope, someday, for both.

[Deleted User 89]

i said nothing about reid, and nothing about trump

i specifically commented on the numbers mccaskill referenced

and you, DC, just did exactly what i thought you would

[ousdahl]

[DCHawk1]

i said nothing about reid, and nothing about trump

i specifically commented on the numbers mccaskill referenced

and you, DC, just did exactly what i thought you would

Pointed out that the Senate is supposed to sit on shit and make sure very little gets done?

As my friend Jimmy put it: "Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation."

[DCHawk1]

i said nothing about reid

Of course you didn't. Because that would demonstrate that you don't really care at all about the issue; it is but a cudgel with which to beat McConnell.

[ousdahl]

poor, poor little Mitch.

[Deleted User 89]

i said nothing about reid

Of course you didn't. Because that would demonstrate that you don't really care at all about the issue; it is but a cudgel with which to beat McConnell.

actually, i didn’t mention him because i didn’t remember, nor really cared, who led that senate. my statement was a general one, which you made partisan

after actually looking deeper, rather than resorting to assumptions and bs, it looks like mccaskill’s numbers may or may not be off, depending on what exactly she was referring to

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -congress/

[DCHawk1]

my statement was a general one, which you made partisan

Sorry. But you don't get to cite a partisan making a thoroughly partisan argument and then pretend that you didn't mean anything partisan by it.

Of course you did.

[Deleted User 89]

ok

[DCHawk1]

poor, poor little Mitch.

link?

[seahawk]

[twocoach]

i said nothing about reid

Of course you didn't. Because that would demonstrate that you don't really care at all about the issue; it is but a cudgel with which to beat McConnell.

Still on the "if you didnt complain 30 years ago then you cant complain now" shtick?

[DCHawk1]

Try "three years ago," dumdum.

[zsn]

i said nothing about reid

Of course you didn't. Because that would demonstrate that you don't really care at all about the issue; it is but a cudgel with which to beat McConnell.

Still on the "if you didnt complain 30 years ago then you cant complain now" shtick?

It’s more like the “ ‘Arsenic has terrible side-effects’, ‘Well, Tylenol has nasty side-effects too’ “ schtick