That seems to me to be a remarkable level of collaboration. That the Republicans were acting in bad faith in having provisions stripped from a bill that they had already determined not to vote for – but that they are now taking credit for in their constituencies – suggests that the lack of bipartisanship is pretty much on the other side of the aisle.

Of course, it makes it worse for me that the provisions that were removed were, to my mind, sensible and just.

NeoNut moron….

[Mod note: Please do not suggest violent acts on others, even in jest. Thank you.].

So the “offensive” provisions – which would have helped a lot of vulnerable people – were taken out of the bill as a gesture of cooperation and and not. a. single. Republican. voted. for. it.

Your position, if I understand it, is that despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the nation wants the bill passed and there were more than enough votes to pass it, the Democrats should have tabled the bill because it offends your amour propre that the Republicans weren’t able to stop it?

You can argue the timing, but you have to realize that the rest of what you’re saying isn’t very practical or democratic.