Should Senator Warnock voted against the debt ceiling increase until voting rights was added to it

[dsc]

Remember, the change to the filibuster rules permitting the debt ceiling to be raised with a simple majority was bipartisan and had 2/3 support but the increase itself was 51 to 50. Had Warnock, or any other Democrat for that matter, voted against it, it would have lost 49 to 51. I bring Senator Warnock up since he considered it. It is an interesting alternate universe, but frankly I think he should have done that. Progressives don't play enough hardball in important issues.

[dawg]

1. No. Hostage taking only works if the mark actually cares about the hostage.

The Republicans would be happy to let the economy and full faith and credit of the United States crash and burn ... so long as it happened on Joe Biden's watch.

[question everything]

3. +1. We came to the same conclusion

[dsc]

4. their donors care a f load about this hostage

and thus so do they.

[dawg]

7. Don't kid yourself. The big money guys will be fine regardless.

A couple of years of stock losses would be nothing to them if it meant returning full control of the government to the Republicans.

After all, it's not really even a loss if you don't sell. And if you have enough money to support your lifestyle without selling, then you just ride it out.

It'd be the little guys and people in the middle who would be crushed. And many of them would blame President Biden and the Democrats.

[question everything]

2. No! Keeping bills hostages does not work and only sends a message

to the general population that Democrats are unable to govern.

Same with the left wingers who are, supposedly regret not holding the infrastructure bill hostage.

[bigtree]

5. here we go, lining up progressives to take some 'shouldhave' blame for 'moderates'

....who are plainly the ones transparently obstructing voting rights, as well as BBB.

So why single out Warnock, or progressives, for that matter? Did anyone else 'consider' it? Where's the others' 'hardball' move?

[dsc]

6. I have no idea if anyone else did or didn't

his speech on the Senate floor explicitly said he did consider voting against so that is why I used him. It is on video if need be.

[bigtree]

8. you singled him out, but there's really no record of Warnock saying anything during the debt vote

...about voting rights.

What he did say, like several others, was that the debt deal on the filibuster was a good example of how the filibuster on voting rights should be addressed.

It's anyone's guess how you got to 'progressives don't play hardball' from that. It's not just progressives who declined to go that route.

[dsc]

9. There most certainly is

Here is his speech from the floor on the day the limit was raised. It is his speech, unedited, from CSPAN. Start at 1:07:00. The words you will be looking for is sorry I lied about what you posted.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?516734-2/senate-votes-50-49-raise-debt-limit-25-trillion

[bigtree]

11. the fault's in pointing just to him and pointing the finger at 'progressives'

Last edited Thu Jan 27, 2022, 01:34 AM - Edit history (1)

...instead of the two moderates who scuttled an easy vote to change the filibuster.

Warnock, a freshman senator, would have already explored that option (which he apparently raised in his speech) with the majority leader, who is responsible for how that vote happened that day.

What about the other 49 senators?

And, why should I be sorry for questioning such a poorly sourced assertion? 'Here's his speech,' and this is why "progressives don't play enough hardball in important issues."

[ecstatic]

10. Everyone was told to be patient and that voting rights would be addressed

after infrastructure. I was duped. Maybe Sen Warnock was too?

[Demsrule86]

12. How you ever expected voting rights to be taken care of with as 50 50 Senate and at least

one maybe two Democratic senators saying they would not vote for it is beyond me...was always wishful thinking. We need more Democrats and this is the simple truth.