• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Biden policies - COVID/immigration

Exactly. It’s not like anyone is going to reject the money on principle, it’s just a stupid way to lie, and frustrating to be gaslit about something Biden said less than 2 weeks ago. I have leftovers in my fridge older than his promise for “$2000 checks”.

this is so patently obvious. it's giving me a headache to read this thread
 
Exactly. It’s not like anyone is going to reject the money on principle, it’s just a stupid way to lie, and frustrating to be gaslit about something Biden said less than 2 weeks ago. I have leftovers in my fridge older than his promise for “$2000 checks”.

They didn't LIE. You are WRONG!

You must also hate Biden wanting to raise taxes on corporations.
 
Once again won’t fucking matter, you think if your progressive saviors in the house and senate put together a relief bill that included a check for 2000 that Biden wouldn’t sign it with zero push back, and alternatively when progressives find that their Republican colleagues won’t do an additional 2000 but enough are on record the first time that they could probably do 1400 that Biden won’t sign that either. Finally, when it all goes to shit and after negotiations with Republicans all you get is 600 more he won’t just sign that too.
 
They are trying to put together a bill that they can get enough Republican support for that they don't have to use reconciliation for this. Bumping this up to $2,000 from $600 obviously had a lot of people who thought that was a reasonable conclusion of the claim including Bernie Sanders.
 
Biden policies

Progressives: Biden won't do anything.

Biden: In my first bill I am proposing $15 minimum wage, $1,400 relief checks, expanded unemployment, etc, etc, etc.

Progressives: OMG, we are going to freak out on the ambiguity of $2,000 instead of $600.

The entire movement seems obsessed with painting establishment dems as the enemy to get Pubs elected so that they can blame the Pubs being in power on establishment dems.

Just once in our discourse on the tunnels it would be nice to hear a political perspective from you that’s personally meaningful, rather than you just spinning every.single.discussion into party gamesmanship. If Joe Biden says he’s going to cut me a 2000 check and it’s 1400, I’m going to be upset about that, I don’t give a shit about how that reflects on the party. If you want to talk about actual sports there’s a whole separate board for that - politics isn’t sports, and I don’t think about it in terms of which team I’m on.
 
You misunderstood the entire thing and PROVED it with your own "evidence". You showed tweets from BEFORE the $600 passed. YOUR evidence showed it was about $2000 not $2600. We will get to $2000.
 
Just once in our discourse on the tunnels it would be nice to hear a political perspective from you that’s personally meaningful, rather than you just spinning every.single.discussion into party gamesmanship. If Joe Biden says he’s going to cut me a 2000 check and it’s 1400, I’m going to be upset about that, I don’t give a shit about how that reflects on the party. If you want to talk about actual sports there’s a whole separate board for that - politics isn’t sports, and I don’t think about it in terms of which team I’m on.
I haven't gotten any stimulus check other than $355 from the state of North Carolina. The only thing in this bill that's personally meaningful to me is the increased child tax credit.
 
You showed tweets from BEFORE the $600 passed. YOUR evidence showed it was about $2000 not $2600. We will get to $2000.

It passed December 21st
6a38151abe64bc9940ef062e95546192.jpg

The argument for 600+1400 kinda falls apart when 2 Senator-elects tweeted out big pictures of $2000 checks *weeks* after the 600 passed, and days after it dispersed.
 
how I understand it:

- Republican stimulus package included $600 checks
- Trump said $2,000 before the package was passed
- Many, mostly Democrats, ran with $2,000 and it became shorthand for a larger direct payment
- The stimulus bill passed at $600
- The CASH Act was passed on December 28 to expand the $600 to $2,000; it passed the House but did not even get a vote in the Senate
- Cash started going out to people while the debate continued; $2,000 remained shorthand for the expansion, especially in Georgia around the Senate runoffs

I think this is a case of bad communication around specifics and intentional leaning-in to the vagueness of what was being proposed by Democrats

3 days ago, from an article from Bernie's website:

Mr. Sanders said in the interview that he wanted an initial, emergency stimulus package to be “big.” He thinks it must include an additional $1,400 in direct payments for adults and children, on top of the $600 that Congress just passed, along with money for states and cities to fund coronavirus vaccine distribution, testing and contact tracing.


https://www.sanders.senate.gov/in-t...ittee-at-last-bernie-sanders-wants-to-go-big/
 
at the end of the day, I think different elected officials meant different things: some wanted $2,000 more and some wanted $2,000 total

there doesn't seem to be a lot of coordination on the issue among Democrats and it shows in the discussion over the last several pages
 
The vagueness was intentional. Why be specific about something when you don't have to be? If Loeffler and Purdue were out there saying, "Ossoff and Warnock are saying $2000 checks, but you should press them on whether they mean $2000 total or just $1400 extra!" then they would have formed a position and clarified.

Checks and the check image in the Warnock tweet can also be read literally or metaphorically. If someone gets their payment by direct deposit, technically they didn't get a check at all. Does anyone really want to argue about that?
 
When did the campaign start? It started in November. How could they possibly know about what bill (if any) would pass at that time?
 
The vagueness was intentional. Why be specific about something when you don't have to be? If Loeffler and Purdue were out there saying, "Ossoff and Warnock are saying $2000 checks, but you should press them on whether they mean $2000 total or just $1400 extra!" then they would have formed a position and clarified.

Checks and the check image in the Warnock tweet can also be read literally or metaphorically. If someone gets their payment by direct deposit, technically they didn't get a check at all. Does anyone really want to argue about that?
Republicans can exaggerate and separate their messaging from intention all the time. That isn't even the case here.
 
When did the campaign start? It started in November. How could they possibly know about what bill (if any) would pass at that time?

But the tweet he keeps mentioning is dated AFTER the $600 passed. You don't set all your campaign comms at the beginning and then never alter anything. If they kept tweeting it after the $600 passed, then the argument is that they meant to give a $2000 check. It's a reasonable argument.

In actuality, I'm pretty sure they just wanted to parrot Trump's language to make it harder for Purdue and Loeffler to campaign against.
 
But the tweet he keeps mentioning is dated AFTER the $600 passed. You don't set all your campaign comms at the beginning and then never alter anything. If they kept tweeting it after the $600 passed, then the argument is that they meant to give a $2000 check. It's a reasonable argument.

In actuality, I'm pretty sure they just wanted to parrot Trump's language to make it harder for Purdue and Loeffler to campaign against.

The stimulus was talked about throughout the campaign. How often do campaigns (from either side) change numbers about an issue? Sadly, candidates simply sing Piano Man the same way every night.
 
Biden also said "$2000 checks" But a lot of this money will be distributed via direct deposit. WTF!?!
 
Back
Top