The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[IndyDave1776]

Like I tried to indicate that kind of its time for the other to give in first mentality has never worked.

Yes, but one side has consistently been giving in for decades and just now finally said, "enough, we aren't doing it any more," and now the side which has been engaging in wrong-doing with impunity for decades is screaming 'foul' for having the other side behave likewise.

 

[Dddrees]

My guess is that it would turn out as either a cold repeal, a rallying point for 'we are down to the deadline, we have to pass SOMETHING', or a really cynical ploy to keep the Democrats from even trying to take back congress for fear of being the ones having to find a solution that Trump won't veto.

Yeah, but the Congress hasn't had much success with this kind of tactic either. Besides it appears that they can only repeal certain things without having at least 60 votes. I guess they could always invoke the nuclear option but I don't think any of us want things to get to this point. Sure Republicans might be happy in the near term but what happens if and when things turn around like they typically always have?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Most people only quote or heard part of the sentence. Sounds bites rule our world.

You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

Exactly. If it is not possible for us to find out what it contains before it becomes law, that is a huge problem.

 

[Dddrees]

Yes, but one side has consistently been giving in for decades and just now finally said, "enough, we aren't doing it any more," and now the side which has been engaging in wrong-doing with impunity for decades is screaming 'foul' for having the other side behave likewise.

Look I'm sure the other side could come up with equally valid reasons they've been wronged worse, more often, or possibly first. Pretty common when you have two sides.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yeah, but the Congress hasn't had much success with this kind of tactic either. Besides it appears that they can only repeal certain things without having at least 60 votes. I guess they could always invoke the nuclear option but I don't think any of us want things to get to this point. Sure Republicans might be happy in the near term but what happens if and when things turn around like they typically always have?

Harry Reid should have thought of that as well.

 

[Dddrees]

Exactly. If it is not possible for us to find out what it contains before it becomes law, that is a huge problem.

The way I remember it the legislation was so humongous that almost no one knew all that it entailed.

 

[KLB]

The way I remember it the legislation was so humongous that almost no one knew all that it entailed.

Pretty much. Then it was railroaded through by the Democrats.

The PDF i looked at is 906 pages long.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The way I remember it the legislation was so humongous that almost no one knew all that it entailed.

That's fair. It was massive.... but it was debated for weeks, and was thus available for those who wished to see it.

 

[Dddrees]

Harry Reid should have thought of that as well.

He should and you got that right. But I also remember a 60 minutes piece where not only Reid but McConnel bragged out the tactics they both used to make sure neither got what they wanted. Basically they where bragging that either one of them did whatever it took to bring our Country to a screeching halt.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Look I'm sure the other side could come up with equally valid reasons they've been wronged worse, more often, or possibly first. Pretty common when you have two sides.

Other perhaps than the 2000 recount, I can't think of anything. No Republican has declassified material that could substantially assist a rival foreign power, allowed Russia to control any of our uranium production, had numerous unnatural deaths attributed to him/her, placed classified information in a server which practically begged to get hacked (I suspect that this was a covert method of selling secrets rather than stupidity. Incidentally, General Petraeus was charged and sentenced for a less serious breach of security.), or managed to get through an entire election cycle with a virtual wall of secrecy around him.

I could throw in that I am satisfied that our war effort, particularly in invading Iraq, was more a war to save Halliburton than any constructive purpose, but then again, GWB got excoriated in the press on a daily basis, so it isn't like it was ignored or swept under the rug.

 

[Dddrees]

That's fair. It was massive.... but it was debated for weeks, and was thus available for those who wished to see it.

The way I remember it also was fairly historic in terms of the way the Dems excluded the Republicans from the process. Maybe not that they were ever going to get any support but something about how they went about it. They had the majority at the time after all, but here again typically a majority only tends to be temporary. Besides one of the reasons this program is so controversial besides being an entitlement is because it was created by and passed by only one party. The Republicans on their own don't stand any better chance for long term success if Democrats aren't involved in the process.

The other thing was that the only people who probably understood it were the people who wrote it and those more than likely where the ones who were to gain financially from it.

 

[Dddrees]

Other perhaps than the 2000 recount, I can't think of anything. No Republican has declassified material that could substantially assist a rival foreign power, allowed Russia to control any of our uranium production, had numerous unnatural deaths attributed to him/her, placed classified information in a server which practically begged to get hacked (I suspect that this was a covert method of selling secrets rather than stupidity. Incidentally, General Petraeus was charged and sentenced for a less serious breach of security.), or managed to get through an entire election cycle with a virtual wall of secrecy around him.

I could throw in that I am satisfied that our war effort, particularly in invading Iraq, was more a war to save Halliburton than any constructive purpose, but then again, GWB got excoriated in the press on a daily basis, so it isn't like it was ignored or swept under the rug.

Ok

And what would a Democrat counter with? Everybody has a beef, and in fact often both sides have a valid point.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ok

And what would a Democrat counter with? Everybody has a beef, and in fact often both sides have a valid point.

My point is that I am trying to remember any time that the Dems had a legitimate complaint about something that wasn't dealt with at the time, as opposed to being officially ignored and treated like the 'n' word so far as discussing it in public.

 

[KLB]

That's fair. It was massive.... but it was debated for weeks, and was thus available for those who wished to see it.

Weren't there a lot of last minute changes by the Democrats?

 

[Dddrees]

My point is that I am trying to remember any time that the Dems had a legitimate complaint about something that wasn't dealt with at the time, as opposed to being officially ignored and treated like the 'n' word so far as discussing it in public.

Well I'm sure there are others you just can't come up with right now as well. I get it, believe me I get it.

 

[Dddrees]

Weren't there a lot of last minute changes by the Democrats?

I think by excluding Republicans the Democrats just plain screwed us regardless.

 

[jamil]

if they can't get anything done and Trump keeps being Trump do you really think Democrats aren't going to make some gains? After all Trumps numbers really do look like s*** right now.

Depends. If Democrats keep it dialed to 11, along with all the social justice nonsense, and idiotic rants from "celebrities", it almost doesn't matter what Trump does because that's worse to them.

It's harder to say what impact all that might have in the house of representatives. It depends how people perceive reality. If Dems really wanted to gain seats they should squash all of the radical social justice nonsense. But they can't. It's who they are to their core. I get the sense that irrational social justice is as much a turnoff to center and right voters as irrational abortion positions are for center and left voters. And there's no sign that Democrats want to distance themselves from nutty positions such as the claim that there's no biological difference among sexes. So I have no idea how that's going to play out. I don't really think Republicans will gain seats, but I do think they will hang onto the majority.

In the Senate, the picture is much clearer. There are more Democrats in red states up for reelection than there are Republicans in blue states. Some races that have a good chance to get flipped in favor of Republicans:

• Indiana: Any reasonable Republican should easily beat Donnelly in Indiana, no matter how many union shills are bussed to multiple districts to vote.
• MO: Clair McCaskill will be facing some pretty good competition. There are three declared candidates, none of whom will make the same moronic mistake Todd Akin did. It was his election to win and he answered a gotcha question stupidly. That's not going to save her this time.
• Dem John Tester in Montana is going to have a pretty good fight on his hands.
• Heidi Heitkamp ND's oil country is going to have a rough time. I'm not sure Democrats can buss in enough illegals to vote as dead people to save her.
• Joe Manchin of West VA is actually in play. That's a big opportunity to wrest that seat away from Democrats. I think he will hang onto his seat though. The Poor white Appalachians who voted for Trump seem kinda worried about Trump's tax plan. It's just interesting that it's even in play.

Those are 5 senate seats that could possibly or even likely flip to Repubs.

As far as Republican flips in the senate there aren't very many up for reelection in blue states. Probably the only seat Dems have realistic chance to flip is Dean Heller in NV. So most realistically optimism for Dems is that they hold onto all the Democrat seats and gain Heller's. That puts the Senate at 51-49 Republicans maintain majority. But more realistically, Republicans will win at least 1 or 2 seats from Democrats in red states. So realistically the Senate number stay the same or Republicans extend their majority 53-47.

 

[bwframe]

As long as Trump keeps winning and the dems continue being dems, we'll have a lock in 2018.

We need the dems to keep running left and oh...

...Russia, Russia, Russia...

 

[jamil]

What??????

Let's try again....Two adults, male or female can have a conversation and use slang terms for genitalia in a private conversation...whether it's the girls at Bunco or a couple of guys in the gun shop...And because I think that is okay and falls under the shelter of a private conversation and just adults being adults that means I can "excuse it because someone else somewhere in history can also be found at fault ("will you" is what I think you meant to say)then you'll be able to excuse anything and anybody..."

Really???? That's your takeaway???? Quite a stretch.....

Maybe I grew up differently but rough talk and not being uptight about sex or language is just something we learned in the 70's.....

This is extremely sexist of you. You've imposed a cis-normative male perspective on an obviously gender fluid space thus preventing the amelioration of the myriad inequities that impact the societal acceptance of non-normative gender actions, and furthered the problematic environmental bullying of non-normative thought processes with regards to the wider acceptance of the social contract between different intersectional identity groups. For example your white male privilege makes you think only of the cis-normative perspective, that onlyl women would socialize at Bunco, when obviously many non-normative and those with gender fluidity would tend to do so.

However, you correctly accuse those who are part of the white male patriarchy who congregate to conspire against the unprivileged at these horribly oppressive places of ill repute you call "gun shops". No moral person interested in social justice would ever....

Wait....

<shudder/>


Sorry. I'm back to normal now. I just read a paper authored by some professor who teaches one of those "studies" classes.

 

[SSGSAD]

BS

This is a tactic and not a plan. They don't have anything and this is just simply irresponsible. Didn't work when they kicked the can with the budget bluff the Dems and Republicans agreed to years ago and this kind of thing won't work here either.

Oh, I agree, they don't have a plan .....

I am as upset, as you .....


I am a very open minded individual ......


I don't drink the kool aid, for either party, until it comes to MY freedom, and MY rights .....