That "something small" had poison pills; you act as if Democrats turned down free charity.

You seem to be the one struggling with this. Rs didn't want to give people money and you complained that Ds wouldn't agree with this reasonable position. Now Trump blew up negotiations that might have ended with people getting money and, surprise, you're still blaming Ds when it was obstinate Republicans who told Trump to blow up the talks. Now you're complaining that Ds get to make the case to voters, because Trump and Republicans handled this so incredibly incompetently, that Rs own this failure.

Just complaining and complaining and complaining from start to finish.

....

more like


but yah

No, not yeah.

Okay, no broad R support for a 1T plan, the D's go ahead and demand 2T, and never back off of that number.



If I wanted a deal, why would I go double the amount the other side was already balking at (and never coming down, even though a deal could be had for less while only needing a few R's)? None of you explained that.

Because the other side is a bunch of cultish ghouls? Evil is their brand right now and their offer was stupid. Sorry, no more monies, gave them all the 1%ers on the last package.

Okay, whatever. The D's could have got a few of the evil ghouls on their side to pass a less expensive bill that could helped some. Why didn't they?

Look up the House Problem Solvers Caucus.

If this is true why doesn’t Trump call their bluff and offer the full amount? He doesn’t gaf about the money.

It is true. There is limited Republican support for a spending bill in the senate (that's no secret), so if the Democrats want to get something done, they have to get enough Republicans onboard (and there are willing Republicans to do something, but not anything). It has to be bipartisan to get enough votes in the Senate from Republicans, in other words, Trump needs Democrats. However, to get the Democrats onboard would mean losing ALL Republican support, due to the demands of the Democrats, meaning it won't get through the senate, unless the Democrats attract republican support. You don't attract republican support by doubling what they were initially willing to offer and never budging off that.

As was pointed out before by several pundits, Pelosi is playing political hardball to paint the Republicans. Pelosi does not want to do a deal unless it's on her terms, which is her prerogative, but she is selling out her constituents and the American public in order to make a political point about how evil the republicans are, becasue she can't get a deal at $2T. and she knows it. She is letting people starve when she could have at least got them crumbs (but she could of got way more than crumbs, but even still). This is why Goofy is parroting the party line in several of his post tonight.

If the Democrats wanted to help the American public, even a little bit, they could get a deal done. The republicans can be the most evil bastards, and the Democrats can be right about republicans, it still does not change the fact Pelosi chose zero over something. Why? To paint the Republicans and Trump.

Let's see if HIV learns from this piece of information or decides to keep promoting a lie:

Wow, so shocking for HIV to lie to us like this!

Pelosi Is Blocking Second Skinny Stimulus Plan, This Time From Moderate Democrats

Wow, so shocking for HIV to tell a lie and then respond by posting something that in no way supports his claim!

Let's say a wife and husband want to go buy a new car and they can't buy it unless they both agree. The wife wants to spend 10K, and the husband wants to spend 20K. The wife is adamantly opposed to spending that much under any circumstances, but the husband will only agree if they spend that much. The wife upped her cap to 15K, but the husband will only agree if they spend 20K. The 20K is just like zero. The 20K is never going to happen. The husband is now calling the wife cheap, and blaming the wife for them not having a car, when he could have had a car, just a less expensive one. That's exactly what's going on here.

(you can't claim a poison pill when there is bipartisan support for a lesser package, either)

LOL. You can't claim bipartisan support by citing a bunch of House reps whose opinion does not matter! Have you already forgotten that the stumbling block for getting a bill done is Mitch McConnell, who notably does not give a **** what some caucus in the House thinks?

Defending a lie with another lie.

Right....Mcconnell is willing to put up a bill for a vote, but no democrats will support anything less than 2T, so it needs 100% republican support for something to pass less than 2T, which is why Trump is trying to attract Democrats becasue there is not enough republican support. Pelosi will allow vote on 2T, which gets zero support from Republicans.


I don't know how many times this needs to be explained to you.

Didn't you just tell me 24 House reps will? What's your source for claiming Senate Democrats wouldn't sign on to some kind of compromise - say, something Pelosi worked out with the White House - that comes under $2T?

Oh, what's that? We'll never find out, because Mitch killed negotiations? Sounds like a reckless move on his part with an election coming up!

.

I updated to Pelosi.

Pelosi won't put a bill on the house floor that is under 2T, which has no chance in the Senate.

Are...you...aware...of which branch of Congress Nancy Pelosi is a member of? I guess that was a hard pass on reading a ****ing book sometime.

Skinny for thee, fat for me? Sounds about right.

This is so frustrating. There is not enough republican support for spending bill on their own in the senate, which means there needs to be some democrats vote on a bill in the senate. Pelosi and Schumer are steadfast in opposition to anything less than 2T and have voted against anything less, thus far. Any house movement on a bill less than 2T has been blocked by Pelosi. The bill proposed by Pelosi has no chance to get enough republican support in the senate.

Once again, I've never denied many republicans don't want to spend, which means if something gets done (paint them as evil bastards all you want), if a a bill were to go to POTUS, it has to attract a fair amount of democrats. To do that, it has to be 2T, or Pelosi won't allow a vote in the house. That size loses all republican support, which means no bill goes to POTUS.

I really don't get why you can't grasp this. No matter who you blame, what I've laid out her is essentially what is occuring.

$2T was never going to happen, it was as good as a zero.

I'm going to bed. I do like how you all moved on from "Pelosi was being a good negotiator" argument, though.

I grasp it just fine, you just keep including basic factual errors in your posts that demonstrate an inability to actually analyze the situation objectively.

You keep citing this $1.5T House bill as evidence Pelosi would never put a bill under $2T to a vote, but that's just a claim you've invented. Pelosi didn't put that bill on the House floor because negotiating against yourself is idiotic. By not listening to your terrible advice, she supposedly got the White House up to $1.6T (per your WSJ)! And maybe Mnuchin would have gone higher from there, particularly as Trump is now tweeting manically about doing deals now that it's dawning on him what a pile of **** he stepped in to with his handling of this.

We'll never know what could have come out of Pelosi and Mnuchin's negotiations, because it sounds like Mitch sniffed that out and killed it. Seems like a risky play before an election! I guess he really hates giving money to people who need it.