Bipartisan infrastructure deal now looks likely to happen? (2 Viewers)

[Amused to Death]

Welcome to Biden’s America.

Do you support a universal basic income program?

  PUBLIC STATEMENTS No, this will encourage people not to work and harm economic growth

Joe Biden’s answer is based on the following data:

PUBLIC STATEMENTS

Answer: No, this will encourage people not to work and harm economic growth

Reference: “His Biden Institute blog post rejects a big idea (universal basic income),” ‐politico.com

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Hunger rates plummet

But socialism!

 

[supermike80]

It's almost as if the OP was in a coma from 2016 to 2020. 

I don't understand why still creates threads but whatever....you guys keep encouraging him so were stuck with this. The CNN discussion board.  How fun

 

[The Commish]

Let us know when you finish the courses! 

At any point you're ready to engage in a meaningful way, I'm here.  The offer's been open for almost a year now.   

Or just continue with the unoriginal, personal insults.

 

[Amused to Death]

Hunger rates plummet

But socialism!

I'd much rather feed people than give tax cuts to the richest among us.

Great job, Joe!

 

[stlrams]

Supporting what? 

What you said is not what Mitch said and not the full text of his statement.  Youre taking the msm approach that you enjoy supporting..

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I'd much rather feed people than give tax cuts to the richest among us.

Great job, Joe!

Cute talking point by the left.  If they were serious about it, they would redo the entire tax code to eliminate all the loopholes the "rich" takes advantage of.  Instead they just increase tax rates which doesn't affect "the richest among us" and hits the middle class. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Don’t take this the wrong way but your place is probably considered a crappy place to work at also (the type of job only)  When a bigger chain offers your cooks a $200 sign up bonus, you will lose them.  All everyone does is poach each other’s workers now.  The low-skilled and bad workers have all the power, they will have their pick of jobs like your place.   when things don’t go their way, they will go to the next place.   Give a UBI to these people?  Oh hell no.  

Welcome to Biden’s America.

A little over dramatic with the bolded.  Is he pushing for UBI?  

Yes - I fully admit in the scheme of things our place is a crappy place to work as well.  We all have our battles and reasons for losing workers.   We have a crap health plan and we lose FT workers to places like Target/Walmart like I said.  We just seem to be doing a lot better than other fast food stuff around us, and are actually busier currently as a result.   

As I have said, I also believe that people are confusing UBI with our current beefed up covid unemployment.   The plans for UBI I've seen are for $1K a month - hardly enough to live off of. 

 

[Thunderlips]

It did not. There was a proposal, that Trump signaled he would accept, which essentially traded funding for the wall for extending the Dream Act. Trump stated he was for this, and Shumer did too. But then the far right apparently could not tolerate a path to citizenship even for US veterans, and suddenly Trump did a 180. 
 

On infrastructure, the Democrats repeatedly asked for a proposal from the White House. When none was forthcoming they offered their own, but the Republicans refused to consider it. McConnell never offered his own proposal. 
 

So what @BladeRunner asserted is simply false. 

Obstruction is a buzz word that enables the Right to play victim.  The reality is...if something is presented, voted on and defeated...that's not obstruction.  That's Democracy.  

 

[the moops]

Cute talking point by the left.  If they were serious about it, they would redo the entire tax code to eliminate all the loopholes the "rich" takes advantage of.  Instead they just increase tax rates which doesn't affect "the richest among us" and hits the middle class. 

Would Mitch McConnell go along with that? Doubtful

 

[timschochet]

What you said is not what Mitch said and not the full text of his statement.  Youre taking the msm approach that you enjoy supporting..

What is in the full text that would alter the meaning of his statement? 

 

[ekbeats]

Were the Democrats as obstructionist, during the Trump years, as the Republicans have been before and since? That seems to be the argument being made here, but I’m not buying it. During the Trump years the Dems tried to reach bipartisan agreements on immigration, on spending, on Infrastructure. In each case they believed they had White House approval only to have Trump bail out each time whenever the far right objected. 
Is Biden proposing anything particularly controversial? Not really; it’s all stuff that the majority of Republicans, based on polling, is pretty strongly in favor of. So it appears that the GOP in Congress is only opposing him because they think it will help them regain power. 

Democrats' 'Resist Trump' narrative exposes their weak agenda

“RESIST!”

The mantra of the 2017 Democratic party has been easy for its adherents to proudly shout as the clouds of “Russian collusion” and “obstruction of justice” hung over the Trump administration. But after the oft-repeated storyline collapsed under the weight of the Comey and Sessions testimonies, the Democrats find themselves in an awkward position where they, once again, may have to start talking about the issues that affect regular Americans. 

It’s safe to assume the party is trying to avoid this. The memory of how well the talking points of their social agenda and the touting of Obama’s legacy played in the 2016 election is still fresh in the minds of their communications team. Predictably, over the past week they’ve attempted to move the goalposts from the hysterics of collusion to claims about the “Muslim” ban, lawsuits to get Trump’s tax return, and making parody videos about cabinet meetings.

They have also fallen back on a new anonymously sourced leak that Robert Mueller is now investigating the President for obstruction. They claim there is fire to go along with the smoke, despite the under oath public testimony of the “obstructee” that the “obstructor” did not obstruct.

But most bizarre new conspiracy theory of this past this week was a Democratic and media driven attack on the Eric Trump Foundation, which raised over $16 million for pediatric cancer research at St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital. Its filings are public. You can even read them for yourself on the New York State Attorney General’s website; and yet, the Democrats believe that keeping the conversation focused on criticisms of a pediatric cancer charity is preferable to a open debate about their policy goals.

So what exactly is the Democratic Party agenda that they’re so afraid of discussing?

If we filter through the left’s antiphonic chants on collusion and obstruction, we see few very discussions of substance, which collectively add up to a noticeably weak platform: 

Defending Obamacare

Just this week, another 2 million Americans came off the Obamacare rolls citing the “high costs and lack of affordability” as a primary factor. The ACA is in its death spiral, and the Republican Congress is closer than ever to passing a repeal and replace. 

This places Democrats in a familiar position: defending the legacy of Obamacare against clear evidence that it’s failed to meet its goals, costs more than expected, and limited healthcare choices. This was the position they found themselves in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, and cost them dearly at the ballot box.

Standing against tax relief

Lowering taxes on the middle class is popular, so much so, that Democrats who don’t want the President to get a win on tax relief are resorting to desperate attempts to tie it to unrelated issues. The lowering of taxes on all Americans, they claim, should be delayed until Congress can review Trump’s own tax returns. Play that out and what they are really saying is, “The middle-class should pay higher taxes so that we can keep hitting our talking points.”

The Trump tax plan will cut taxes for the middle class through the adjustment of rates and through doubling the standard deduction. This is good for America, but you wouldn’t know it from democrats who are claiming it will only help the class-warfare bogeymen of “big corporations” and “billionaires.”

Maintaining lighter sentences for drug traffickers

Last month, Attorney General Sessions announced a departure from the 2013 Obama DOJ policy that instructed federal prosecutors not to specify the amount of drugs involved when charging drug offenders. Essentially, the new guidelines simply require prosecutors to charge defendants with the actual amount of drugs they are caught with and sentenced according to existing law. To argue against this, is to argue in favor of a willful ignorance of existing laws.

Denouncing foreign policy they once touted… because Trump

In April, CNN.com ran a blunt headline: “Democrats are being hypocritical about Trump's war powers.” The piece describe efforts to paint Trump’s Syrian airstrike as “unlawful,” despite what amounts to decades of complacency when previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority. 

This hypocrisy is also evident in the Russian hysteria. Democrats have used a language change in the 2016 RNC platform, which no longer calls for arming Ukraine, as proof of an underhanded collusion with Putin. This discounts that it ran congruent to Obama’s existing foreign policy, and that Clinton actually offered a 180 degree turn toward Kiev, so much so that Ukraine was caught in its own meddling and collusion scandal with the DNC. 

Being for infrastructure, before they were against it

Despite angling for a major infrastructure bill for many years, Democrats have come out swinging against Trump’s stimulus plan as simply an attempt to give money to “Wall Street and big corporations.” As noted by CNBC’s Jake Novak, “Democrats are in serious danger politically because they're losing their connection to all working class voters, not just the white working class. Opposing or simply ignoring any plan to benefit the working class is the last thing the Democrats need right now.”

Recall, this was the one area where Democratic leaders said they would be willing to work with President. But despite the fact that three-quarters of Americans hope they would, we see a party that would rather pander to those members in its cheap seats who believe in “resisting” Trump whatever the cost.

Given all this, it is no surprise that even progressive writers at the New York Times have been forced to admitthat “The Democratic Party is in worse shape than you thought.” 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Would Mitch McConnell go along with that? Doubtful

Doubtful. No one on either side is going to change the tax code to affect themselves.  So it's a neat talking about to convince voters who's putting money back into their account. 

 

[timschochet]

Democrats' 'Resist Trump' narrative exposes their weak agenda

“RESIST!”

The mantra of the 2017 Democratic party has been easy for its adherents to proudly shout as the clouds of “Russian collusion” and “obstruction of justice” hung over the Trump administration. But after the oft-repeated storyline collapsed under the weight of the Comey and Sessions testimonies, the Democrats find themselves in an awkward position where they, once again, may have to start talking about the issues that affect regular Americans. 

It’s safe to assume the party is trying to avoid this. The memory of how well the talking points of their social agenda and the touting of Obama’s legacy played in the 2016 election is still fresh in the minds of their communications team. Predictably, over the past week they’ve attempted to move the goalposts from the hysterics of collusion to claims about the “Muslim” ban, lawsuits to get Trump’s tax return, and making parody videos about cabinet meetings.

They have also fallen back on a new anonymously sourced leak that Robert Mueller is now investigating the President for obstruction. They claim there is fire to go along with the smoke, despite the under oath public testimony of the “obstructee” that the “obstructor” did not obstruct.

But most bizarre new conspiracy theory of this past this week was a Democratic and media driven attack on the Eric Trump Foundation, which raised over $16 million for pediatric cancer research at St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital. Its filings are public. You can even read them for yourself on the New York State Attorney General’s website; and yet, the Democrats believe that keeping the conversation focused on criticisms of a pediatric cancer charity is preferable to a open debate about their policy goals.

So what exactly is the Democratic Party agenda that they’re so afraid of discussing?

If we filter through the left’s antiphonic chants on collusion and obstruction, we see few very discussions of substance, which collectively add up to a noticeably weak platform: 

Defending Obamacare

Just this week, another 2 million Americans came off the Obamacare rolls citing the “high costs and lack of affordability” as a primary factor. The ACA is in its death spiral, and the Republican Congress is closer than ever to passing a repeal and replace. 

This places Democrats in a familiar position: defending the legacy of Obamacare against clear evidence that it’s failed to meet its goals, costs more than expected, and limited healthcare choices. This was the position they found themselves in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, and cost them dearly at the ballot box.

Standing against tax relief

Lowering taxes on the middle class is popular, so much so, that Democrats who don’t want the President to get a win on tax relief are resorting to desperate attempts to tie it to unrelated issues. The lowering of taxes on all Americans, they claim, should be delayed until Congress can review Trump’s own tax returns. Play that out and what they are really saying is, “The middle-class should pay higher taxes so that we can keep hitting our talking points.”

The Trump tax plan will cut taxes for the middle class through the adjustment of rates and through doubling the standard deduction. This is good for America, but you wouldn’t know it from democrats who are claiming it will only help the class-warfare bogeymen of “big corporations” and “billionaires.”

Maintaining lighter sentences for drug traffickers

Last month, Attorney General Sessions announced a departure from the 2013 Obama DOJ policy that instructed federal prosecutors not to specify the amount of drugs involved when charging drug offenders. Essentially, the new guidelines simply require prosecutors to charge defendants with the actual amount of drugs they are caught with and sentenced according to existing law. To argue against this, is to argue in favor of a willful ignorance of existing laws.

Denouncing foreign policy they once touted… because Trump

In April, CNN.com ran a blunt headline: “Democrats are being hypocritical about Trump's war powers.” The piece describe efforts to paint Trump’s Syrian airstrike as “unlawful,” despite what amounts to decades of complacency when previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority. 

This hypocrisy is also evident in the Russian hysteria. Democrats have used a language change in the 2016 RNC platform, which no longer calls for arming Ukraine, as proof of an underhanded collusion with Putin. This discounts that it ran congruent to Obama’s existing foreign policy, and that Clinton actually offered a 180 degree turn toward Kiev, so much so that Ukraine was caught in its own meddling and collusion scandal with the DNC. 

Being for infrastructure, before they were against it

Despite angling for a major infrastructure bill for many years, Democrats have come out swinging against Trump’s stimulus plan as simply an attempt to give money to “Wall Street and big corporations.” As noted by CNBC’s Jake Novak, “Democrats are in serious danger politically because they're losing their connection to all working class voters, not just the white working class. Opposing or simply ignoring any plan to benefit the working class is the last thing the Democrats need right now.”

Recall, this was the one area where Democratic leaders said they would be willing to work with President. But despite the fact that three-quarters of Americans hope they would, we see a party that would rather pander to those members in its cheap seats who believe in “resisting” Trump whatever the cost.

Given all this, it is no surprise that even progressive writers at the New York Times have been forced to admitthat “The Democratic Party is in worse shape than you thought.” 

I’m not going to go through every line of this piece and point out the flaws- I think there are many but what would it get me? We’d only get bogged down in side arguments about who supported what. 

I’m more interested in discussing your overall response to the current Republican obstruction, which seems to be “so what? The Democrats did it too!” Even if true, not much of a good defense.
 

Can we agree that obstruction for political purposes is bad fir the country? Can we agree that Joe Biden is not a socialist and not promoting socialism? And that therefore McConnell’s remarks are both wrong and unhelpful? 

 

[stlrams]

What is in the full text that would alter the meaning of his statement? 

I only heard a portion of his statement but you are clearly taking it out of context that’s why I was asking for the full text.  

 

[timschochet]

I only heard a portion of his statement but you are clearly taking it out of context that’s why I was asking for the full text.  

How did I take it out of context? 

 

[quick-hands]

I’m not going to go through every line of this piece and point out the flaws- I think there are many but what would it get me? We’d only get bogged down in side arguments about who supported what. 

I’m more interested in discussing your overall response to the current Republican obstruction, which seems to be “so what? The Democrats did it too!” Even if true, not much of a good defense.
 

Can we agree that obstruction for political purposes is bad fir the country? Can we agree that Joe Biden is not a socialist and not promoting socialism? And that therefore McConnell’s remarks are both wrong and unhelpful? 

If Biden is actively supporting  socialist positions can we agree  that it doesnt matter if he is a socialist in his heart.   His actions are socialist.   I think we can agree on that.

 

[timschochet]

If Biden is actively supporting  socialist positions can we agree  that it doesnt matter if he is a socialist in his heart.   His actions are socialist.   I think we can agree on that.

Of course. I agree with your premise. Now please explain what socialist positions Biden supports. 

 

[The Commish]

If Biden is actively supporting  socialist positions can we agree  that it doesnt matter if he is a socialist in his heart.   His actions are socialist.   I think we can agree on that.

I'd like a list of the actual socialist positions we are talking about here...that would be helpful.  Are we talking about the vaccine research, creation funding and distribution?  If McConnell wants to go against that, it would be interesting to watch.  I am unaware of any other position he's taken that comes close to this vaccine event when measured on this "socialism" scale.

 

[John123]

I’m not going to go through every line of this piece and point out the flaws- I think there are many but what would it get me? We’d only get bogged down in side arguments about who supported what. 

I’m more interested in discussing your overall response to the current Republican obstruction, which seems to be “so what? The Democrats did it too!” Even if true, not much of a good defense.
 

Can we agree that obstruction for political purposes is bad fir the country? Can we agree that Joe Biden is not a socialist and not promoting socialism? And that therefore McConnell’s remarks are both wrong and unhelpful? 

Quit blaming Republicans.  BOTH sides have broken congress. 

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-congress-stopped-working

 

[Redwes25]

What GOP legislative proposals were obstructed by the left during the Trump administration? It seems like the big legislative efforts were as follows:

1) Tax cuts - passed

2) Obamacare repeal - failed to pass

3) Stimulus bill - passed

Were there any other major bills that were introduced and ultimately obstructed by the left?  It’s an honest question - I suspect there may be some, but I’m just not remembering them. The Obamacare repeal is the primary example, though it didn’t actually include a replacement health care plan. I don’t recall the GOP introducing a health care bill, or an infrastructure bill, or an immigration bill. I guess there was the issue of funding for the wall. Did an actual bill get out of committee on on that?

I honestly don't recall any legislative initiative by Trump other than what you mention.  Democrats did try to resist everything he did but they guy really was pertty ineffectual other than bashing his opponents.  

 

[timschochet]

Of course. I agree with your premise. Now please explain what socialist positions Biden supports. 

I want to add that I personally define socialism in the same way most people do: public ownership of all means of production: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

[The Commish]

A reminder:

noun: socialism

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

This is a pretty simplified definition, so if we get something that measures up to even this then it's worthy of discussion IMO.

 

[timschochet]

A reminder:

This is a pretty simplified definition, so if we get something that measures up to even this then it's worthy of discussion IMO.

I think we’re making the same point here. 

 

[Gilroy34]

My BIL is one of the guys sitting at home making more with the stepped up unemployment.  He's making more sitting at home, I mean I guess I can't blame him.  We are giving him a raise if he doesn't work.

Yep, I just talked with a friend of mine who is not currently working.  He is a handyman and has been out of work for over a year.  I asked him if he has had any luck on the job search and he said he hasn't really been looking and doesn't plan to until September when the unemployment benefits may stop.  He gets $245 a week normally but it is now $525 a week with the extra $300.  There is no incentive for him to go find a job since he was only making around $35k a year before.

 

[timschochet]

Quit blaming Republicans.  BOTH sides have broken congress. 

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-congress-stopped-working

Right now, at this moment, it is Democrats making the proposals and Republicans obstructing them. Would you agree with this? 

 

[quick-hands]

Of course. I agree with your premise. Now please explain what socialist positions Biden supports. 

We’d only get bogged down in side arguments about who supported what. 

 

[timschochet]

Yep, I just talked with a friend of mine who is not currently working.  He is a handyman and has been out of work for over a year.  I asked him if he has had any luck on the job search and he said he hasn't really been looking and doesn't plan to until September when the unemployment benefits may stop.  He gets $245 a week normally but it is now $525 a week with the extra $300.  There is no incentive for him to go find a job since he was only making around $35k a year before.

There is not a single political argument, be it liberal, conservative, fascist, Communist, or something in between, that I could not justify if I chose to do so with a personal anecdote. 

 

[John123]

Right now, at this moment, it is Democrats making the proposals and Republicans obstructing them. Would you agree with this? 

You'd have to give specifics.  And what you mean by obstructing.  If they don't like things like an infrastructure bill that is only 3% infrastructure I don't blame them for "obstructing" it. 

You didn't even have enough time to read my link before responding.  It's almost like you don't care about the deterioration that is happening in our governing bodies, which to me is a much more important issue. 

 

[timschochet]

We’d only get bogged down in side arguments about who supported what. 

Nice. 
But, unlike my response to @ekbeats , determining what is socialist about Biden’s policies is not a side argument to this discussion. It’s central, goes right to the heart of it. If you believe Biden or the Democrats are acting socialist, tell us how. 

 

[knowledge dropper]

Yep, I just talked with a friend of mine who is not currently working.  He is a handyman and has been out of work for over a year.  I asked him if he has had any luck on the job search and he said he hasn't really been looking and doesn't plan to until September when the unemployment benefits may stop.  He gets $245 a week normally but it is now $525 a week with the extra $300.  There is no incentive for him to go find a job since he was only making around $35k a year before.

UBI is already here.  

 

[timschochet]

You'd have to give specifics.  And what you mean by obstructing.  If they don't like things like an infrastructure bill that is only 3% infrastructure I don't blame them for "obstructing" it. 

You didn't even have enough time to read my link before responding.  It's almost like you don't care about the deterioration that is happening in our governing bodies, which to me is a much more important issue. 

I read your link. But I already addressed that issue. I’m willing to put it aside. 
In terms of your first point, I’m referring to McConnell’s statement, in which he is 100% focused on stopping Biden’s socialism. Since there is no socialism from Biden, I think we can logically assume that McConnell means to oppose ALL of Biden’s proposals, for political purposes. Do you agree with this assumption? 

 

[John123]

I read your link. But I already addressed that issue. I’m willing to put it aside. 
In terms of your first point, I’m referring to McConnell’s statement, in which he is 100% focused on stopping Biden’s socialism. Since there is no socialism from Biden, I think we can logically assume that McConnell means to oppose ALL of Biden’s proposals, for political purposes. Do you agree with this assumption? 

I'd rather deal with reality than hypotheticals.  Get back to me when you have a legitimate complaint.  I realize this is all a game to you but I'm not gonna play.  And someone else above indicated that your initial post is not complete and/or out of context.  Why didn't you post a link to the full comments?  I haven't seen them so I wouldn't comment on your assumption without reading them anyways.  And, given your propensity for taking things out of context it wouldn't surprise me if your entire premise is flawed.

 

[timschochet]

I'd rather deal with reality than hypotheticals.  Get back to me when you have a legitimate complaint.  I realize this is all a game to you but I'm not gonna play.  And someone else above indicated that your initial post is not complete and/or out of context.  Why didn't you post a link to the full comments?  I haven't seen them so I wouldn't comment on your assumption without reading them anyways.  And, given your propensity for taking things out of context it wouldn't surprise me if your entire premise is flawed.

Why don’t we start with this very specific question which I can’t seem to get a single person to answer: what is socialist about Biden’s policies? 4th time I’ve asked this only this morning. 
 

As to YOUR question, I don’t have McConnell’s complete comments; only the tape that everyone in the news, including Fox, is playing. But what he said was pretty straightforward. So if you want to make this “out of context” argument, then I’ll ask you the same exact question I asked @stlrams: how? 

 

[shadrap]

The bolded would be a perfect one word definition for my BIL and SIL

Lazy is better.  IMHO

 

[John123]

Why don’t we start with this very specific question which I can’t seem to get a single person to answer: what is socialist about Biden’s policies? 4th time I’ve asked this only this morning. 
 

As to YOUR question, I don’t have McConnell’s complete comments; only the tape that everyone in the news, including Fox, is playing. But what he said was pretty straightforward. So if you want to make this “out of context” argument, then I’ll ask you the same exact question I asked @stlrams: how? 

So you don't even know exactly what he said, just some soundbite that you heard from some questionable news source?  And you thought it was thread worthy?  Ok then.......

 

[identikit]

So you don't even know exactly what he said, just some soundbite that you heard from some questionable news source?  And you thought it was thread worthy?  Ok then.......

And so it goes.

 

[shadrap]

I guess, if that was their mentality they probably would be doing that with or without a bumped up UI.   That's not for everybody (me), and frankly it's makes some people and families miserable.  I don't know what %s are, but maybe it's my more hippy/liberal tendencies peeking out when I see extra money for people as more family time, maybe a way to keep a parent home more, let people explore things they love more (increasing mental health), etc.    For sure give me that choice of working a crap repetitive job with little mobility and staying home with my family and it's a no-brainer.  

I can appreciate your hopefulness for lazy people.  In my experience they do none of what you suggested. 

 

[timschochet]

So you don't even know exactly what he said, just some soundbite that you heard from some questionable news source?  And you thought it was thread worthy?  Ok then.......

Nice deflection. 

 

[John123]

Nice deflection. 

Your thread title isn't even accurate.  I looked up the comments.  He didn't say what you put in quotes in your thread title.  Do you even know what the purpose of quotation marks is?

 

[identikit]

Good.

My comment to the thread title

 

[The Commish]

Probably fruitless, but I'll try a different way.  Things McConnell has labeled "socialist" in recent years.

1.  $2000 stimulus payments.  (Oddly enough this was bad, but stimulus to rich people and companies via the 2018 tax bill was no big deal...he pushed it through)
2.  DC becoming a state
3.  Expanding the SC
4.  Reversing gerrymandering
5.  Blocking a citizenship question on the Census
6.  Medicare for All
 

Those are just off the top of my head things I remember in comments from him during his "speeches" on the floor.

 

[Doug B]

So you don't even know exactly what he said, just some soundbite that you heard from some questionable news source?  And you thought it was thread worthy?  Ok then.......

Why wouldn't you just search out a quick link and attempt to prove what you are saying about context? Here's a minute's worth of McConnell's speech, with one edit at ~40 seconds. Is this sufficient, or is context still misring?

EDIT: I've transcribed the first 40 seconds here. It's true that tim's OP title is not a direct quote. But neither is it miles off the mark. Taken verbatim, McConnell's words are dam-ning enough:

100% of my focus is on stopping this new administration. I think the best way to look at what this administration is: the President may have won the nomination, but Bernie Sanders won the argument about what this new administration should be like. 

We're confronted with severe challenges from a new administration and a narrow majority of Democrats in the House and a 50-50 Senate to turn America into a socialist country. And that's 100% of my focus. [edit pause] 100% of my focus is in standing up to this administration.

You can fairly say that McConnell is not saying that Biden will singularly turn the U.S. into a socialist country. McConnell, rather, seems to target a wide swath of people -- people in Biden's executive branch, House Democrats and Senate Democrats. From what I can tell, McConnell actually respects Biden personally, so these words are likely chosen carefully.

 

[Doug B]

Why didn't you post a link to the full comments?  I haven't seen them so I wouldn't comment on your assumption without reading them anyways.

Wait, what? So how do you know the OP's title is out of context?

 

[johnnycakes]

McConnell went on to say that, although Joe Biden won the nomination, Bernie Sanders’ ideas won. He failed to offer any specifics. 
 

Bernie Bro here.  I voted for Biden precisely so that some of Bernie's ideas could see the light of day.  Glad to see Joe remembers who supported him.  

 

[timschochet]

Why wouldn't you just search out a quick link and attempt to prove what you are saying about context? Here's a minute's worth of McConnell's speech, with one edit at ~40 seconds. Is this sufficient, or is context still misring?

Because he doesn’t want to get into specifics. He just wants to make it appear that McConnell was deliberately taken out of context by myself and the MSM. He can’t explain how (since it’s not true.) 

 

[Doug B]

Because he doesn’t want to get into specifics. He just wants to make it appear that McConnell was deliberately taken out of context by myself and the MSM. He can’t explain how (since it’s not true.) 

Have to say, though, that the title of your OP is inaccurate -- see my edit a few posts up. The gist is there, but there wasn't a singular focus on Biden. And I don't think it's fair game to say that when people say "Biden" that stands for "the Democrat-led federal government". For one, allowing that shortcut paints Biden as much further left than he really is going by his policy positions.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

There is not a single political argument, be it liberal, conservative, fascist, Communist, or something in between, that I could not justify if I chose to do so with a personal anecdote. 

Your full of crap.  You went on a rage against me once regarding home schoolers because you had a friend that taught in public school and claimed she was the expert on education.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I have a certain sense of admiration for the Trump party.

They have taken 3 issues:

1.  Election Security

2. Transgender Sports

3.  Critical Race Theory

and, whipped their base into a frenzy, despite there being no pressing need to address any of these issues.  But, Trump party members in state houses across the nation are fighting these issues tooth and nail.  If ever there is a problem that does not need solving - Trump Party will handle it.

 

[The Commish]

There is not a single political argument, be it liberal, conservative, fascist, Communist, or something in between, that I could not justify if I chose to do so with a personal anecdote. 

Your full of crap.  You went on a rage against me once regarding home schoolers because you had a friend that taught in public school and claimed she was the expert on education.

Isn't your experience with Tim exactly Tim "justifying a political argument with a personal anecdote"?