Let the Obstruction Begin!

[Belsnickel]

(11-16-2016, 01:26 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Term limits are only half the problem. Money is the other. Ban lobbyist and publicly fund campaigns.

Lobbyists do not equate to money. Lobbyists can't give gifts. Lobbyists are a problem, but it's more about the revolving door than the money. Lobbyists are an important part of the process. They will never, and should never, go away. We just have to rethink the relationship between lobbying firms and our government.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(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.

So much fail, so hard, in so few words.

The career staffers who you claim would control foreign policy don't vote on foreign policy, either.  And who would be the expert, a one and done politician with no experience or the career staffer with the experience who the one and done politician defers to their expertise, as per your foreign policy career staffer example?  Unless you think one and done politicians are going to pick career staffers who aren't good at their job and aren't influential and don't have the necessary expertise to help smart people make informed decisions.  And if that is the case, why are they career staffers if they suck at their job?  And why would the one and done politician pick them for their expertise if they don't have any god damn expertise?  Are they going to pick career staffers without the necessary expertise to be career staffers just so they can ignore their input?

[JustWinBaby]

(11-17-2016, 02:34 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So much fail, so hard, in so few words.

The career staffers who you claim would control foreign policy don't vote on foreign policy, either.  And who would be the expert, a one and done politician with no experience or the career staffer with the experience who the one and done politician defers to their expertise, as per your foreign policy career staffer example?  Unless you think one and done politicians are going to pick career staffers who aren't good at their job and aren't influential and don't have the necessary expertise to help smart people make informed decisions.  And if that is the case, why are they career staffers if they suck at their job?  And why would the one and done politician pick them for their expertise if they don't have any god damn expertise?  Are they going to pick career staffers without the necessary expertise to be career staffers just so they can ignore their input?

Ummm, being a career staffer means you aren't "picked" by any politician.  The stakes are higher, the issues more complex, and the experience/knowledge of the politician usually comparatively much lower.  This is the difference you can't grasp, and how foreign policy ends up being 1) a continuation and 2) effectively dictated by career staffers.....vs, say, HUD.

And with respect to foreign policy, we aren't talking a few "career staffers" but a ginormous bureacracy of the military complex, FBI, CIA, NSA and other organizations.  A POTUS is not making any significant/major course corrections - it's the height of arrogance to think you know better than the combined institutional knowledge of millions of people over decades.  It's why our policy evolves, for the most part, over decades and not with every Presidential election. And that's a good thing.

Again, my apologies for forgetting many people struggle to grasp what's actually being said and why.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-17-2016, 06:32 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Ummm, being a career staffer means you aren't "picked" by any politician.  The stakes are higher, the issues more complex, and the experience/knowledge of the politician usually comparatively much lower.  This is the difference you can't grasp, and how foreign policy ends up being 1) a continuation and 2) effectively dictated by career staffers.....vs, say, HUD.

And with respect to foreign policy, we aren't talking a few "career staffers" but a ginormous bureacracy of the military complex, FBI, CIA, NSA and other organizations.  A POTUS is not making any significant/major course corrections - it's the height of arrogance to think you know better than the combined institutional knowledge of millions of people over decades.  It's why our policy evolves, for the most part, over decades and not with every Presidential election. And that's a good thing.

Again, my apologies for forgetting many people struggle to grasp what's actually being said and why.

To quote you, none of them vote. 

Bless your little heart, but the FBI, CIA, and NSA Directors and General grade military officers are all appointed/nominated by the President. 

George W. Bush and the staffers he appointed "sold" the world on invading Iraq. You don't think that was a "significant" course correction?

Thanks for playing. See Don Pardo on your way out to pick up your consolation prize, thebengalsboard.com home board game deluxe edition. Bu-buy, now. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-17-2016, 07:12 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: To quote you, none of them vote. 

Bless your little heart, but the FBI, CIA, and NSA Directors and General grade military officers are all appointed/nominated by the President. 

George W. Bush and the staffers he appointed "sold" the world on invading Iraq. You don't think that was a "significant" course correction?

Thanks for playing. See Don Pardo on your way out to pick up your consolation prize, thebengalsboard.com home board game deluxe edition. Bu-buy, now. 

...and now I have "I Lost on Jeopardy" stuck in my head. Thanks a lot. Lol

[JustWinBaby]

(11-17-2016, 07:12 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Bless your little heart, but the FBI, CIA, and NSA Directors and General grade military officers are all appointed/nominated by the President. 

LMFAO.  You're dense.  Must be miserable lacking so much basic sense.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-17-2016, 09:53 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LMFAO.  You're dense.  Must be miserable lacking so much basic sense.

Apparently, when it comes to economics, it's trickle down. But, when it comes to foreign policy, it's trickle up. I've heard of voodoo economics, but voodoo foreign policy?  Do do that voodoo that you do so well. I guess Cheney, Romney, Libby, Tenet, and Wolfowitz had little influence on the pre-invasion Iraqi intel?  The false intel just trickled up on its own and forced the politically appointed staffers to follow a foreign policy against their own will?  I guess they are the real victims of a cabal of underling intel analyst pushing a false agenda for invasion?

[Vas Deferens]

(11-18-2016, 12:13 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Apparently, when it comes to economics, it's trickle down. But, when it comes to foreign policy, it's trickle up. I've heard of voodoo economics, but voodoo foreign policy?  Do do that voodoo that you do so well. I guess Cheney, Romney, Libby, Tenet, and Wolfowitz had little influence on the pre-invasion Iraqi intel?  The false intel just trickled up on its own and forced the politically appointed staffers to follow a foreign policy against their own will?  I guess they are the real victims of a cabal of underling intel analyst pushing a false agenda for invasion?

What's that called when old dudes can't hold their pee-pee?   Is that more prevalent in old white dudes?   Serious question, bc that trickle nomenclature seems to trickle in more often.   I heard Reagan wore depends.  Looks like trump does too. 


Praise Jesus. 

[fredtoast]

(11-17-2016, 06:32 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And with respect to foreign policy, we aren't talking a few "career staffers" but a ginormous bureacracy of the military complex, FBI, CIA, NSA and other organizations.  A POTUS is not making any significant/major course corrections - it's the height of arrogance to think you know better than the combined institutional knowledge of millions of people over decades. 

Right, because no POTUS ever created an entire office in the DOD (Office of Special Plans) just to stovepipe information to support an invasion even though that the intelligence community knew the information was unreliable.

[*wildcats forever*]

Enough with the insults - make your points respectfully. Thank you.

[Aquapod770]

Liberals will see no problem with this. Do as I say and not as I do.