Yzermandius19

Then your ability to evaluate presidents is terrible, and/or you don't know anything about American history.

Just because a political party does things you don't like doesn't mean they are to be outlawed. Banning political parties is a violation of the first amendment and if a political party violates the first amendment, that doesn't change the equation and make outlawing them not a violation of the first amendment. Such measures would never get past the SCOTUS. Just because the other side doesn't respect the first amendment does not give you a pass because you don't respect it. Stooping to their level is bad juju, and in this case you are one upping them and stooping even lower than them with this proposed course of action.

That would be a blatant violation of the first amendment. Even if it wasn't, it would still be a terrible precedent that could easily result in a political party you support getting outlawed. Such measures wouldn't only be used against political parties you don't like, especially in the long run, if that genie is let out of the bottle. So be careful what you wish for or you will pave the road to your own weapon possibly being used against you.

Quebec never choose Harper, what are you talking about?

Eyeball's wishful thinking that outlawing in-camera lobbying is some kind of sure fire cure for government corruption is laughable, government corruption existed long before in-camera lobbying existed, and if it were banned, it would exist for long after as well.

Indeed, you judge politicians against saints who will never get elected, if they even existed, while I judge them against other politicians, who knew? You compare Trump to a utopian vision and find him lacking, while I compare him to his actual competition and find him to be better than most. That is the difference between me and you.

Some of us don't blame either. Those with Trudeau Derangement Syndrome and Trump Derangement Syndrome blame one or both.

Trudeau has not outperformed Trump, the extent to which Canada is suffering less than America has little to do with government response. Those who think government responses are making a huge difference in saving lives have far too much faith in government. Of the countries whose governments have responded the most effectively, the effective measures they took had nothing to do with heavy handed mandated economic shutdowns that wreck the economy, they did so with testing and isolating the sick and vulnerable. The most panicky government responses that make the rubes feel the safest, are actually the least effective if not outright counter-productive responses, that are at best stall tactics to bide time to try and come up with a real plan.

He really can't distinguish between the two, he thinks reality caters to his wants and desires. A comical cocktail of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance that leads to endless circular reasoning and goal post moving.

Most Americans have very different views of Trump than I do, it's true. The difference is, I don't project my views on American voters like Boges does, which is a big reason my analysis is so superior. The rest of your post is nonsense.

Most states voted for Trump. It's the United States of America, not the United Voters of America.

Many of those who disapprove of him still don't view him the way you do, and all of those who approve certainly don't. I would suggest the same is true of his easter comments, but again you want to believe that most Americans see Trump the way you do, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Trump is doomed now, says Boges for the millionth time. No matter how many times you're wrong, you'll keep predicting his doom, absolutely sure that this time you are right, like an insane person. You'll simply never admit that most Americans have very different views of Trump than you do, or if you will admit to that, you will still refuse to come to realization that enough of them aren't going to change their minds and start agreeing with you, that it will doom him. You have to hold onto the "Trump is doomed!" delusion, no matter what. Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug.

Anyway, back to the OP. No, the virus won't take Trump down. Most Americans approve of Trump's handling of the Coronavirus. Trump's approval rating is rising and at a record high. Trump's favorability rating is rising and near a record high. Trump has never been more popular. Coronavirus is helping him, not hurting him. His haters not being able to understand how that is possible doesn't change reality.

Could have been a lot faster, especially when the reason for the delay wasn't getting important additions to the bill, but about pork barrelling for things that had nothing to do with Coronavirus. Pretending that there were core changes to the bill worth days of delay is asinine. The House could have voted sooner, and The Democrat Senate could have passed it sooner, the delays had nothing to do with Republicans and everything to do with Democrats.

I complaining about it getting held up, when speed matters and the poor need the money ASAP, and the changes aren't so important that delaying it for days is worth the costs, especially to the poor. This could have been passed days ago if it weren't for Democrats obstructing, mostly because they didn't get enough pet funding for shit with nothing to do with Coronavirus crammed into the bill, trying to exploit a crisis to ram through shit that would never get passed otherwise, as that is what changed when they finally decide to vote for it.

Right and helping the rich doesn't hurt the poor. You support delaying the poor getting what they need to make sure the rich don't get as much help. Your claims of being pro-poor instead of anti-rich are obviously malarkey, or you wouldn't hold that stance, especially in a national emergency where the poor need the help ASAP.

Yeah then she should have made the changes in the House, instead of getting Schumer to hold it up in the Senate. If the Republicans obstructed the bill at that point, it then would have been on Republicans, but right now, it's 100% on the Democrats.

He'd rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich. He'll make anything up to cling to that worldview too, cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug.

Then he goes with a strawman. Pelosi held the bill up, after she voiced her concerns Schumer and the Democrats changed their mind and voted against the McConnell's bill.

Changing the subject, another goal post mover, like I said never ending. Your original position was "they didn't obstruct the bill, the Republicans did", and then you changed it to "Okay the Democrats obstructed it, but they did it for good reasons", and then you changed it to "Okay, they didn't do it for good reasons, but they are allowed to do it anyway", and then you changed it to "Yeah, my previous post is besides the point, but here's a situation where the Republicans obstructed, so it's okay for the Democrats to obstruct too". Anything to give the Democrats a pass for obstructing important legislation during a national emergency, what's your next goal post moving excuse for them?

Goal post moving. Of course it's their prerogative, but that doesn't mean they didn't hold up the bill. I never said they weren't allowed to hold it up, I said they held it up. Then you move the goal posts to "yeah, but they did it for a good reason", and when I shot that down as obviously false you moved the goal posts to "yeah, but they had every right to do it, bi-cameral system". Cognitive dissonance is helluva drug. No matter how many shitty excuses you make for Democrats that get shot down, they'll always be another shitty excuse so you can blame Republicans instead. Never ending goal post moving, the sign of a person scrambling to lie to themselves to keep their delusional worldview intact.

The Dems were on board with McConnell's bill, until Nancy Pelosi said she wasn't then they changed their mind and held it up. It's actually an example of extreme partisanship before feigning bi-partisanship, and you fell for the feint, while ignoring what proceeded it.

You'd rather punish the rich than help the poor. As shown by your support of holding up the help for the poor because the rich get help too.

It's not either or. In fact the new bill unanimously passed in the Senate still gives money to both, proving that point. Basically you don't want the bill helping more than just those you deem to need it, and if it does, you're willing to hurt the people who really need it in order to make sure corporations don't get it. Some friend of the people who need it you are.