What a shocker! The LEADERS of the party that whines about obstruction are gathering with the usual suspects like George Soros to actively obstruct the new POTUS months before he even takes office. I'm sure this would be absolutely unbelievable if it wasn't reported in Politico!
"...Major liberal funders huddle behind closed doors with Pelosi, Warren, Ellison, and union bosses to lick wounds, retrench."
"...if the agenda is any indication, liberals plan full-on trench warfare against Trump from Day One. Some sessions deal with gearing up for 2017 and 2018 elections, while others focus on thwarting President-elect Trump’s 100-day plan, which the agenda calls “a terrifying assault on President Obama’s achievements — and our progressive vision for an equitable and just nation.”"
"...LaMarche emailed the donors last week that the meeting would begin the process of assessing “what steps we will take together to resist the assaults that are coming and take back power, beginning in the states in 2017 and 2018.” "
(11-15-2016, 04:21 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: What a shocker! The LEADERS of the party that whines about obstruction are gathering with the usual suspects like George Soros to actively obstruct the new POTUS months before he even takes office. I'm sure this would be absolutely unbelievable if it wasn't reported in Politico!
"...Major liberal funders huddle behind closed doors with Pelosi, Warren, Ellison, and union bosses to lick wounds, retrench."
"...if the agenda is any indication, liberals plan full-on trench warfare against Trump from Day One. Some sessions deal with gearing up for 2017 and 2018 elections, while others focus on thwarting President-elect Trump’s 100-day plan, which the agenda calls “a terrifying assault on President Obama’s achievements — and our progressive vision for an equitable and just nation.”"
"...LaMarche emailed the donors last week that the meeting would begin the process of assessing “what steps we will take together to resist the assaults that are coming and take back power, beginning in the states in 2017 and 2018.” "
They could start by asking to see Trump's birth certificate.
(11-15-2016, 12:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: Eh, he's already been forced to show that.
That was a certificate of birth, not a birth certificate. It was a short form, not the long form signed by the doctor. Trump's very good lawyer should know that is unacceptable. What are they hiding?
LMFAO @ the Trump/Hannity love fest for Roger "when you're a sexual predator they just let you let" Ailes.
(11-15-2016, 01:33 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: It worked for the GOP.
But the GOP didn't really go that route until after being bent over for like a year and a half...big difference when the majority party says you're irrelevant and they don't need to work with you (and get out of our way).
Two months before the guy is even sworn in, but it will still be lost on some people who the real uncompromising obstructionists are. Keep in mind, this is a regular, standing meeting. This is not new or some one-time thing. The fact they aren't even trying to hide it, but promoting the activity in Politico shows they know what blind hypocrites their followers are.
And the funny thing is, a lot of the BS Harry Reid used to do an end-around bipartisanship is going to bite them in the ass.
This isn't surprising. I stopped bitching about obstruction a few years back (minus the SCOTUS appointment, because that was bullshit) because it's just going to be the norm for years. The ideology of both parties is shifting to the poles. The mean ideology of each side in Congress is as close, if not closer, to the extreme than it is to the centrist line. 15-20 years ago those means were closer to each other than they were to the extremes.
This is going to be the way our federal political landscape is for years until we get tired of it and vote people into office that will actually be compromising.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(11-15-2016, 04:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This isn't surprising. I stopped bitching about obstruction a few years back (minus the SCOTUS appointment, because that was bullshit) because it's just going to be the norm for years. The ideology of both parties is shifting to the poles. The mean ideology of each side in Congress is as close, if not closer, to the extreme than it is to the centrist line. 15-20 years ago those means were closer to each other than they were to the extremes.
This is going to be the way our federal political landscape is for years until we get tired of it and vote people into office that will actually be compromising.
I don't think it's a bad thing, at all. If you can't get a few votes from the other side, then it's probably not good policy. These days I generally favor the Congress doing nothing over doing harm (and Boehner may not have been that far off when he talked about fixing bad laws before making new laws).
Otherwise, I do take issue with the leadership of the Democratic party going far left in the past 10 years or so. Aside from Trump (who's not really a Repub), and the hijacking of a vocal and influential Tea Party, that's not really the case with the Repubs (more a case with their voters). Paul Ryan, IMO, is still about as moderate and rational as anyone in Congress. Unfortunately, McConnell has become kind of Harry Reid lite because he has a bigger problem with the Tea Party and a slim majority than Paul Ryan does.
And I see the need for people like Warren and Pelosi and Cruz, despite how much I despise them. They are vital to moving the country forward responsibly. But it's a problem when their ideas and influence move from the periphery to the core.
Another reason why a two party system doesn't work. Besides, Dems only talk tough, they fold as soon as their donors threaten their campaign contributions, i.e. the public option.
(11-15-2016, 06:31 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Another reason why a two party system doesn't work.
From where I sit, multi-party systems don't work any better.
You want people to make better policy decisions, then you need term limits. It's as simple as that. Policy choices are a distant third to "will my constituents support me" and "will my party support me".
(11-15-2016, 06:47 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: From where I sit, multi-party systems don't work any better.
You want people to make better policy decisions, then you need term limits. It's as simple as that. Policy choices are a distant third to "will my constituents support me" and "will my party support me".
Term limits just result in more outsourcing of the work to career staffers and lobbyists and more ignorant elected officials.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(11-15-2016, 07:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Term limits just result in more outsourcing of the work to career staffers and lobbyists and more ignorant elected officials.
Yeah, but they don't actually have a vote. The number one problem, far and away, is that career policiticans vote almost exclusively for the best chance to be re-elected, not the best choice.
Until you fix that you're not changing anything just moving the deck chairs around.
(11-15-2016, 07:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yeah, but they don't actually have a vote. The number one problem, far and away, is that career policiticans vote almost exclusively for the best chance to be re-elected, not the best choice.
Until you fix that you're not changing anything just moving the deck chairs around.
I agree, but I don't think term limits will be the answer to that. I obviously don't have the perfect answer or else I'd be making a lot more as a political strategist than a bureaucratic bean counter, but I think diluting the power in the House with more MCs would be a good start. They are the chamber that typically takes the more politico approach and diluting things there would help, IMO.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(11-15-2016, 07:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yeah, but they don't actually have a vote. The number one problem, far and away, is that career policiticans vote almost exclusively for the best chance to be re-elected, not the best choice.
Until you fix that you're not changing anything just moving the deck chairs around.
Yeah, term limits will fix everything when the politicians say "Elect me and I will not vote the way you want me to."
The whole theory of a democracy is for the elected officials to represent the wishes of the people who elect them. So why even elect representatives when they are not going to vote the way the people who elected them want them to vote?
If representatives do not have to worry about representing their constituents then they will just sell thwir vote to the highest bidder.
(11-15-2016, 06:17 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't think it's a bad thing, at all. If you can't get a few votes from the other side, then it's probably not good policy. These days I generally favor the Congress doing nothing over doing harm (and Boehner may not have been that far off when he talked about fixing bad laws before making new laws).
Otherwise, I do take issue with the leadership of the Democratic party going far left in the past 10 years or so. Aside from Trump (who's not really a Repub), and the hijacking of a vocal and influential Tea Party, that's not really the case with the Repubs (more a case with their voters). Paul Ryan, IMO, is still about as moderate and rational as anyone in Congress. Unfortunately, McConnell has become kind of Harry Reid lite because he has a bigger problem with the Tea Party and a slim majority than Paul Ryan does.
And I see the need for people like Warren and Pelosi and Cruz, despite how much I despise them. They are vital to moving the country forward responsibly. But it's a problem when their ideas and influence move from the periphery to the core.
Can't get votes from the other side when they sign Grover Norquist's tax pledges.
(11-15-2016, 07:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yeah, but they don't actually have a vote. The number one problem, far and away, is that career policiticans vote almost exclusively for the best chance to be re-elected, not the best choice.
Until you fix that you're not changing anything just moving the deck chairs around.
(11-15-2016, 04:59 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: That's highly unlikely to happen. Everyone says they're going to do change this or that with respect to foreign policy, but in the words of Obama "it's different once you actually sit in the chair". Which is to say career staffers have, and will continue, to dictate foreign policy. They all have their ideas, but then they take office and get a real education on the issues.
Trump, like any other POTUS, could choose to ignore that (although there are still plenty of checks & balances). But there's no real evidence to believe he'll be any different. As a businessman, he's certainly not inexperienced with making decisions on the basis of staffer recommendations.
Clearly unexperience politicians with term limits will solve the problem except when career staffers are involved. And career staffers who would be involved in everything.
(11-15-2016, 09:09 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreec Wrote: Clearly unexperience politicians with term limits will solve the problem except when career staffers are involved. And career staffers who would be involved in everything.
Career staffers don't have a vote, but smart people value their expertise to make an informed judgement. If those staffers are good at their job and influential, people are going to defer to that expertise.
(11-16-2016, 05:19 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Career staffers don't have a vote, but smart people value their expertise to make an informed judgement. If those staffers are good at their job and influential, people are going to defer to that expertise.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(11-15-2016, 06:47 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: From where I sit, multi-party systems don't work any better.
You want people to make better policy decisions, then you need term limits. It's as simple as that. Policy choices are a distant third to "will my constituents support me" and "will my party support me".
Term limits are only half the problem. Money is the other. Ban lobbyist and publicly fund campaigns.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: karl_rove_sg_img-1440x756.png]](https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/karl_rove_sg_img-1440x756.png)
