Try those local debates, too.
They're another way to get insight on what sort of line's going around either party. The one I caught a couple of days ago was, if I remember correctly, regarding a relief bill that included hospital funding. Seems to me that withholding approval for such a thing out of - what was that word? Obstinacy? Ends up depriving the places of assistance that they need right now. Why not accept this and negotiate for more later? How much emphasis was placed on the science highlighting the gravity of this pandemic? How many complaints were made when the opposing side pulled the same sort of politicking? And what in the world happened to pass it before you read it? (I don't mind bringing this back up, y'all keep going with that bleach thing.)
It's been a couple of days since that debate aired, so maybe there's been some progress since. Then again, if obstinacy is valued...
And now for another debate night.
So timed scoffing is permitted and doesn't count as an interruption? (Guess not.)
So if the tax cuts benefit citizens below a certain income threshold, those tax cuts will be kept, not repealed? I don't hear an answer there.
There was an article earlier about a climate-related agreement that three countries refused to sign. How does the Green New Deal relate to that? (Come to think of it, the party line from the local debate also brought this up - what's the difficulty in applying tax rebates [IIRC] to newer methods of generating energy?)
No ban on fracking. OK, lady.
He has a plan. Is it his?
This isn't a topic I've kept an eye on, but I'm wondering about the timeline for manufacturing jobs.
Hang on, how's the USMCA relate to the question asked? (Tie in to above, I think.)
Lotta extensions there, man.
I'm counting more appeals to emotion on the one side than the other, lady, and it ain't his. (Whistle.)
I'm wondering if these extensions would balance out that count. Now, SCOTUS? There you go.
Seriously, the K of C? BYOBuffet K of C?
How much coverage has there been on that knocking?
belated note on allowing choice versus funding for that choice
Does the history lesson answer the question?
This again? Whistle.
How true are those numbers?
So it's not because of what you couldn't do in the job, but because of what you had to work against?
Maybe it's part of the job, hyping up the headliner, but one person answered the question without doing so, lady.
Less brawl-y. I can live with that.
(So far, I've counted two people using the word "relationship" to refer to politics. Is it a healthy one, considering the other parties involved?)