Iuz the Evil Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Republicans in congress will take a lot of abuse from Trump and accept a lot of things they don't like as long as they think they can rewrite the tax code. Undoing Obamacare is an article of faith, but I doubt it's any more important to them than the other things they campaign on perennially. If they can do at least a fig leaf rewrite of Obamacare, decrease Social Security and Medicare benefits a little bit, and do a major rewrite of the tax code to put a greater portion of the burden on the middle class while setting things up for a future budget crisis that will give them a good chance at further entitlement reform....they'll follow Trump at least up to the edge of the cliff. Collectively, and on those items sure (since they'll get to write the actual laws). But individuals in the Senate have ego, and if enough of them get irate they'll go against him on specific items (maybe Russian sanctions, maybe legal "guidelines" to "clarify" limits on these EOs) he rubs their nose in just to show their independence. Graham & McCain for sure, others if this keeps playing out. The Senate margin isn't so great there's no risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Walsh Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Collectively, and on those items sure (since they'll get to write the actual laws). But individuals in the Senate have ego, and if enough of them get irate they'll go against him on specific items (maybe Russian sanctions, maybe legal "guidelines" to "clarify" limits on these EOs) he rubs their nose in just to show their independence. Graham & McCain for sure, others if this keeps playing out. The Senate margin isn't so great there's no risk. Oh, sure. I was more thinking of an open rebellion, "You're not a real Republican and we don't have to listen to you so nya nya" situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuz the Evil Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Oh, sure. I was more thinking of an open rebellion, "You're not a real Republican and we don't have to listen to you so nya nya" situation. Yeah, I would agree there isn't really any chance that happens. He could march naked wearing a Russian army hat in front of the White House and burn the flag and they'd just look uncomfortable, but take no action. It's on policies they actually have to do something to support that there's room for hope. Action vs inaction changes things, and what the Senate in particular produces is likely to be more measured. Joe Walsh 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Historically, how often has a sitting President had significant opposition from his own party in the Presidential primary election? I don't know that it's ever happened in my lifetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Historically, how often has a sitting President had significant opposition from his own party in the Presidential primary election? I don't know that it's ever happened in my lifetime. 1968. 1980. 1992. Cassandra 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuz the Evil Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/opinions/david-axelrod-i-woke-up-this-morning-as-an-alternative-fact/index.html David Axelrod breaking down the unprecedented inclusion of Bannon in the National Security role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 1968. 1980. 1992. On an interesting note, they all won a 2nd term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ternaugh Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 On an interesting note, they all won a 2nd term. I'd suggest that you look again, unless you mean that I've accidentally woken up in a world where Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush both had second terms, and Hubert Humphrey was elected in Nixon's stead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csyphrett Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 The word is Democrats in the senate walked out so they didn't have a quorum. Orrin Hatch a little ticked CES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 Good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 With the "Trump Mandate" the racists are out in force. One of my co-workers is from Lebanon and today some asshole got out of his car to rush my co-worker and scream at him that he'd be heading "back to Iraq." Fortunately, a third party hopped out of his car and some of us from the office saw what was going on and the dude decided to leave after honking and hollering on his way out. *sigh* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 The annoying thing is that once Trump was elected there was also a spate of false reports of hate crimes. People who said Trump supporters were assaulting them, only to later say they'd just been grasping for an excuse for being out late, etcetera. So, when conservatives hear that, they just assume that the little boy is crying wolf again, and they're more ready to believe that because they like wolves allegedly being cried about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sociotard Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 The nominee for Eduaction may have plagiarized on her written exam (questionnaire from senators anyway). DeVos may have copied some questionnaire answers: report In better news, Trump will maintain LGBT workplace protections. The LGTB community is not pacified (his travel ban really hurts gay refugees, some of his cabinet picks have made very negative remarks, Trump is still not for marriage equality) but I am looking for reasons to be optimistic. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317026-white-house-trump-will-continue-to-enforce-lgbtq-workplace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 I'd suggest that you look again, unless you mean that I've accidentally woken up in a world where Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush both had second terms, and Hubert Humphrey was elected in Nixon's stead. I thought Nixon won in 1972, Regan in 1984, and Clinton in 1996 (nevermind, sitting) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csyphrett Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 San Francisco has declared that it will sue the administration over funds. CES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 While I disagree with much of Donald Trump's professed agenda, he did run and was elected on that platform, so he has a mandate to try to bring those things about. What's really unsettling to me is that he's going about it in a manner most likely to spark both public and institutional unrest and conflict. Trump rushes sweeping executive orders without seeming to think through their implications and consequences beforehand, seemingly without even consulting experts on the issues involved. Anyone within the government hierarchy who disagrees with or questions his orders is branded "weak," or accused of "politicizing" their office, and where the President can do so summarily removed. Trump appears to be surrounding himself with "advisors" who are little more than sycophants and yes-men who tell him what he wants to hear, and in several cases have no more expertise in the portfolios they've been handed than he does. I'm not one to indulge in hyperbole, but if President Trump continues on this course I have no trouble foreseeing an open divide in American society on a scale not seen since the Vietnam War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 I tried to call my Senators today to encourage them to vote NO on Besty DeVos for Secretary of Education. Turns out that Senator Hatch's mailbox is full, and Senator Lee doesn't seem to have anyone answering his phones at the moment. So I sent them each an e-mail instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkmate Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 I try to be non-tribal. I do lean more to the right on a lot of things, but am very capable of pointing out the flaws in Republican party, and am not offended if anyone say, calls Donald Trump a petulant child who is unfit for office. Right now though, I'm having a very difficult time seeing things from the Democrat/Liberal side of things. I find myself becoming more and more tribal as time goes on. It feels like Democrats aren't attacking the polices as much as the man, that no matter what he says, they're going to protest it. If he cured cancer, they'd protest that he put doctors out of work. Some examples of the sheer hypocrisy that I'm talking about: 1. Trump is a racist because he wants to deport 2-3 million illegals. Obama deported more illegals than every president from 1900-2008 combined, wouldn't that suggest he's more racist? 2. Trump is a sexist. Do you remember Bill Clinton? He stuck a cigar in a woman's lady bits in front of his friends just to show how powerful he was. Democrats were defending him then, and calling Trump sexist now? 3. Republicans "rule" through spreading fear. If you have ever called the Travel Ban a "Muslim Ban" you have spread misinformation to create hate and fear. 4. Republicans were saying Hillary was evil because when she was a lawyer, she defended a child molester. Democrats came back with the fact that she didn't want to do it, but she had to because it was her job and did it despite her moral objections. Now Democrats are treating Yates as a hero because she didn't do her job because she had moral issues with it. So are you a hero for doing your job or for not doing it? You can't have it both ways. I've tried to discuss these things in more politically oriented forums, but people on the other side just ignore them. They'll say "Muslim ban" and when you point out that 87% of the Muslim community can enter the US exactly as before, they ignore that inconvenient fact and continue to call it a Muslim ban. I really would like to discuss this and I want to feel less tribal again. I want to see the other side of this argument, so if anyone could provide counter points that deal with the facts, I would so appreciate that discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 A partial Muslim ban is still a Muslim ban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enforcer84 Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 1. Trump's ban went after legals. People who'd been vetted and had green cards. That's not the same as deporting Illegals. That's rounding up Foreigners. 2. Clinton's sex scandals and Trumps sex scandals aren't different. They both show signs of men of power treating women like objects. Clinton's cigar antics however were - as far as we know, consensual where as Trump bragged about sexual assault. Both have been accused of the latter and both are poor examples of humanity. Trump is looking to further the GOP backed initiative of telling women how to reproduce so that's something more than Clinton ever did to women. 3. so both sides do the same thing, and? Is it only wrong with the other side does it? Because the same people angry now for the Lefts actions were doing the same on the right an this isn't even an argument. It's just noting that the ability so say the exact opposite thing you did when the tables were turned is a political tactic long used by both sides. 4. Yates was doing her job. She was following the constitution. Clinton was doing her job she was a defense attorney. Yates's job is not to do what the President Demands. Which is what Senator Sessions questioned her about during her confirmation hearings in 2015. She was asked if she could do her job despite pressure from the President (At that time the other team) to do otherwise. Pattern Ghost, Netzilla, Lord Liaden and 5 others 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 I've tried to discuss these things in more politically oriented forums, but people on the other side just ignore them. They'll say "Muslim ban" and when you point out that 87% of the Muslim community can enter the US exactly as before, they ignore that inconvenient fact and continue to call it a Muslim ban. That 13% is still 200 million people, locked out of the country for no reason besides religion and fear. Some of them are Americans, or family members of Americans. Netzilla 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Netzilla Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 I try to be non-tribal. I do lean more to the right on a lot of things, but am very capable of pointing out the flaws in Republican party, and am not offended if anyone say, calls Donald Trump a petulant child who is unfit for office. Right now though, I'm having a very difficult time seeing things from the Democrat/Liberal side of things. I find myself becoming more and more tribal as time goes on. It feels like Democrats aren't attacking the polices as much as the man, that no matter what he says, they're going to protest it. If he cured cancer, they'd protest that he put doctors out of work. Some examples of the sheer hypocrisy that I'm talking about: 1. Trump is a racist because he wants to deport 2-3 million illegals. Obama deported more illegals than every president from 1900-2008 combined, wouldn't that suggest he's more racist? 2. Trump is a sexist. Do you remember Bill Clinton? He stuck a cigar in a woman's lady bits in front of his friends just to show how powerful he was. Democrats were defending him then, and calling Trump sexist now? 3. Republicans "rule" through spreading fear. If you have ever called the Travel Ban a "Muslim Ban" you have spread misinformation to create hate and fear. 4. Republicans were saying Hillary was evil because when she was a lawyer, she defended a child molester. Democrats came back with the fact that she didn't want to do it, but she had to because it was her job and did it despite her moral objections. Now Democrats are treating Yates as a hero because she didn't do her job because she had moral issues with it. So are you a hero for doing your job or for not doing it? You can't have it both ways. I've tried to discuss these things in more politically oriented forums, but people on the other side just ignore them. They'll say "Muslim ban" and when you point out that 87% of the Muslim community can enter the US exactly as before, they ignore that inconvenient fact and continue to call it a Muslim ban. I really would like to discuss this and I want to feel less tribal again. I want to see the other side of this argument, so if anyone could provide counter points that deal with the facts, I would so appreciate that discussion. 1. Deporting illegals is not evidence of Trump being racist. That depends on why he wants to deport illegals in conjunction with other things he's said and done. As for Obama, while it's true that he's deported more illegals than any other single president, I haven't found any evidence that he deported more than all combined. In spite of this, Republican talking heads still tended to paint Obama as soft on illegal immigration. 2. No one I know has ever defended Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct (though I'm sure there are some out there who have). So, I'm not convinced that's a majority view among Democrats. There's plenty of evidence for both of them being sexist to one degree or another. Policy-wise, however, Trump's policies are more hostile to women's health and reproductive rights. So, the difference between them on this issue is a matter of degree. 3. I'm not a fan of using the term "Muslim Ban" in reference to Trump's travel ban precisely because it's an easily falsified claim. While those affected are primarily Muslim, it's targeted at specific countries rather than at Muslims as a whole. Instead, opposition to the ban need to focus on the real problems it has: keeping out legal immigrants, only affects countries Trump doesn't have business ties to (strongly suggesting a conflict of interest), has special conditions for Christians (showing a religious bias), wasn't properly vetted and may well be unconstitutional. 4. Both Hillary and Yates were doing their jobs. The AG's job is not to rubber stamp the President's orders. Rather, the AG's job is to uphold the Constitution. If the AG believes that a Presidential order and the Constitution are in conflict, the AG is obligated to side with the Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmower Boy Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 I try to be non-tribal. I do lean more to the right on a lot of things, but am very capable of pointing out the flaws in Republican party, and am not offended if anyone say, calls Donald Trump a petulant child who is unfit for office. Right now though, I'm having a very difficult time seeing things from the Democrat/Liberal side of things .... I really would like to discuss this and I want to feel less tribal again. I want to see the other side of this argument, so if anyone could provide counter points that deal with the facts, I would so appreciate that discussion. Canadian here, with some thoughts. The political process is about deciding things. All issues that require decisions involve arguing out rival positions. Two people argue two sides, a decision is made by majority vote; and on we go --obviously with the option of revisiting the decision if it doesn't work out. This doesn't work if one side is always wrong, so there has to be some kind of adjustment towards correctness if it's to work properly. In the long arc of history, you can more or less expect that both sides usually have a point. Right, left, "both sides do it," someone said. But! Unfortunately, it turns out that there are three sides to every argument: right, wrong, and "Ur Doin It Rong." I'm a little dismissive here, but I've seen this seat firmly occupied by the NDP, the Greens, and various fringe parties of the right that you won't ever have heard of. Because it turns out that there's plenty of room in the "Everyone is wrong but us" space for every kind of politics. I think that that's because advocating for counterproductive policies and witch hunting your colleagues with ridiculous purity tests is just plain fun for some people. In a parliamentary system, these people get sent to their own corner to hang out, and it can actually be kind of fun, in a mean spirited way, watching them try not to be anti-really pretty much anything/pro-crazy. (Sadly, this is how crazy works. It's not nearly as much fun as sit-coms would have you believe.) It's only when the main party of the left/right fails to win a majority and has to conciliate these people that things get hairy, until it turns out that some people over in the corner are bribeable. Sure, it's a little dirty, but politics can be that way. America, however, has a problem, in that the Speaker of the House doesn't have any meaningful bribes, any more. No means of buying/bullying votes out of the loony bin (sorry, I mean, "principled objectors") corner means approaching them in their own terms. Sure, you look ridiculous checking to see if a woman weighs more than a duck on CSPAN, but a guy's gotta do. . . . That, in itself, is not the problem. The Speaker may get tired of looking ridiculous, but things get done, and hopefully they make their bones before they go. If anything, people get a little charge out of disliking Louis Gohmert and Alan Greyson. (See? Both sides do do it!) The problem is that the Democrats have held the Presidency for sixteen of the last twenty-four years, and there's been a lot of duck-weighing going on, and Donald Trump decided to run on an all-duck-weighing platform. That's why this isn't a "Both sides do it" era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkmate Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 A partial Muslim ban is still a Muslim ban. Completely disagree. A ban is when you say "none of this group of people can come in" letting in 87% of the "banned" group is not a ban on that group. The 13% that are banned aren't banned because of their religion, so no it isn't any kind of Muslim ban, partial or otherwise, and saying it is is using misinformation to spread hate and fear. The ban is for countries that the US doesn't trust to do proper background checks 1. Trump's ban went after legals. People who'd been vetted and had green cards. That's not the same as deporting Illegals. That's rounding up Foreigners. It's not "rounding up" it's not letting them in. I do agree though, the order was hastily done, but the green card and dual citizenship has been cleared up. I was actually referring to before the election though, how up in arms people were when Trump said he was going to deport 2-3 million illegals. 2. Clinton's sex scandals and Trumps sex scandals aren't different. They both show signs of men of power treating women like objects. Clinton's cigar antics however were - as far as we know, consensual where as Trump bragged about sexual assault. Both have been accused of the latter and both are poor examples of humanity. Trump is looking to further the GOP backed initiative of telling women how to reproduce so that's something more than Clinton ever did to women. One bragged, used words, one actually did it. I would say the latter is much, much worse, why wasn't there women's marches about it what Clinton did? And please don't say it was "consensual". Clinton used his position of power to humiliate and sexually assault at least one woman. And my personal feelings are once a woman makes the consensual choice to have sex, she should have to suffer the consequences of that choice, just like everyone else who makes a mistake, but let's not go down that road. 3. so both sides do the same thing, and? Is it only wrong with the other side does it? Because the same people angry now for the Lefts actions were doing the same on the right an this isn't even an argument. It's just noting that the ability so say the exact opposite thing you did when the tables were turned is a political tactic long used by both sides I agree, but I guess my point is, how do you justify demonizing one side for doing what you do? 4. Yates was doing her job. She was following the constitution. Clinton was doing her job she was a defense attorney. Yates's job is not to do what the President Demands. Which is what Senator Sessions questioned her about during her confirmation hearings in 2015. She was asked if she could do her job despite pressure from the President (At that time the other team) to do otherwise. After doing a little more research, I may agree with you on this. I don't think she was "following the constitution", as everything I've read so far the E.O. was legal. My initial thoughts were the AG was required to enforce legal orders, after further research, it looks like I was mistaken, so I withdraw number 4. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 but let's not go down that road. You might want to clarify the statement preceding this. It's open to a very negative interpretation that I'm pretty sure you didn't intend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.