The Political Discussion Thread

[LtColCarter]

It is beneficial when the biggest problem is that the FEDERAL education dept. is riding roughshod over what is supposed to be and is more effectively regulated on a LOCAL level.

Just as with the EPA, the federal agency has become too large and over-regulating. What better solution than to put someone who agrees with those views in charge of it?

The people who have problems with that are the folks who have grown fat & happy under the existing, broken system. In short, these departments need to be gutted.

I don't think any teacher, principal, or even superintendent has "grown fat and happy" under the existing system. So, I don't know why you'd say the only people who have a problem with DeVos are those who've "grown fat & happy." I have to watch what I spend. I've not had a pay raise in 4 years...but I still don't want DeVos leading education in this country. If we followed suit of some of the more effectively run countries, more money would be put into education. Do I think the current system is broken, yes. Do I think DeVos is the answer, NO. She's a new face but in the same corrupt system. Someone with no experience in education should not be the Secretary of Education.

So basically vote for a bunch of incompetent people, let that lead to underfunding and gross mismanagement and watch the system collapse?

That is what happened. Incompetent people were elected. These incompetent people appointed more incompetent people to fill the cabinet.

[Annoyed]

So basically vote for a bunch of incompetent people, let that lead to underfunding and gross mismanagement and watch the system collapse?

Show me a more effective way to reign in a bloated, overreaching and overextended bureaucracy.

[Annoyed]

That is what happened. Incompetent people were elected. These incompetent people appointed more incompetent people to fill the cabinet.

I don't know about incompetent, but perhaps they have different goals? Take EPA for example. Trump's intent was to gut that dept. What better way to do that than to put someone who has always opposed it in charge of it? Your "incompetent" may be someone else's idea of a stroke of genius.

[LtColCarter]

I don't know about incompetent, but perhaps they have different goals? Take EPA for example. Trump's intent was to gut that dept. What better way to do that than to put someone who has always opposed it in charge of it? Your "incompetent" may be someone else's idea of a stroke of genius.

Anyone who won't listen to scientific fact...should not be leading the EPA. The idgit used to sue the EPA for its efforts to regulate mercury, smog and other forms of pollution. Doesn't seem like a stroke of genius to me. It is about as genius has having Rick Perry run the Dept. of Energy. Ironic that the department he wanted to shut down is the one he now runs.

I'll stick to my original comment...incompetent people were elected and appointed incompetent people to fill their cabinet.

[jelgate]

Anyone who won't listen to scientific fact...should not be leading the EPA. The idgit used to sue the EPA for its efforts to regulate mercury, smog and other forms of pollution. Doesn't seem like a stroke of genius to me. It is about as genius has having Rick Perry run the Dept. of Energy. Ironic that the department he wanted to shut down is the one he now runs.

I'll stick to my original comment...incompetent people were elected and appointed incompetent people to fill their cabinet.

That would be problematic. His whole administration ignores scientific facts

[SoulReaver]

His whole administration ignores scientific facts

his whole administration ignores science

Spoiler:

though they do involve science when it's convenient (like when they try to use science to back their Prolife™ agenda)

a bit like the Devil citing Scripture for his own purpose

[LtColCarter]

That would be problematic. His whole administration ignores scientific facts

his whole administration ignores science

Spoiler:

though they do involve science when it's convenient (like when they try to use science to back their Prolife™ agenda)

a bit like the Devil citing Scripture for his own purpose

Very true!

[Annoyed]

I would much prefer...

[Coco Pops]

I thought Trump only hires the best?

How does that explain people like Gorka?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj8IIevqwVY

[Starsaber]

Show me a more effective way to reign in a bloated, overreaching and overextended bureaucracy.

Well, it isn't by privatizing it to make it a bureaucracy that puts profit over the service they're supposed to provide and putting it out of the reach of the less fortunate in society. That doesn't work for medical care and will be even more disastrous when fully applied to education.

[Gatefan1976]

The Republicans do NOT control ALL of the votes. There are 10 potential swing party voters who can move the pendulum into either direction. Most of those 10 persons have voted in favor of the democratic view/side.

He said you control the house, senate and WH, not all the votes.

Democrats WANT this to happen to disrupt and destroy the opposition party (votes), more now simply because Trump is making a mess of the Democratic goals from previous admins. So, anything the Dems have worked hard to install into regulation, Trump & company are undoing. Dems want this STOPPED. And seems they will do whatever it takes to accomplish their goal, even if it is to just frustrate Trump from being and effective (USA) "President".

You mean, do to trump what republicans did to Obama?
Man, that must suck...........

Senate Minority Leader Chuck (Charles) Schumer is an American politician of the Democratic Party, and is basically the voice for the Democratic side. He is serving as the senior United States Senator from New York, which should be "enough said" right there. NY is as liberal as California and Chuck Schumer wants to keep it that way, and assimilate the rest of the entire USA into replicas of NY. Corruption runs high and in high places in NY -and- California, so it seems.

So, because NY is enough?
Is that like racist, because southerner? Racism runs high and in high places in, well, all of them.

Maybe that's stretching the truth a bit, but it's basically what's been going on for years. A continuation of the 2008-2016 Obama Administration, under new names... Same principles and goals, but different people running the various operations.

(oh, and toss in Illinois with NY and California, too... someone once said that Illinois is *very* ill... and that came from a liberal pro-Democrat person I once worked with..!)

Uh huh.

Here is an article where the Democrats are boasting over the gov.shutdown... So, the blame game is appropriately directed at the source of the problem --- the Democrats.

How many articles would you like about repubs boasting the same thing about Obama?

So, there is the reinforcement of what I just previously noted.
Lots of other articles out there saying the same thing, too.

Aww, sorry.

[Gatefan1976]

In your opinion, they are reasons to reject Trump. I understand that. I have a different opinion. In my view, putting Pruitt in at EPA and DeVos in at Education are positive steps, beneficial to the country.

No, I object to trump because he is a frigging idiot, you are moving it back to partisanship. If your agenda is to make your nation stupider and more polluted, that's fine by me. What -I- care about is the risk of having the most powerful military on the planet in the hands of a madman. You folks loose your crap and invade nations for less, do I have no reason to be concerned?
Where the partisanship comes in is that you will -accept- that, so long as the drooling idiot signs what you want, I could not accept that from any side, but you will.

I've said many times that Trump has given me more than adequate justification to replace hlm. With Pence, who is more competent to pursue the agenda that Trump ran on. If somehow he is forced out of office and Pence takes over, I won't have a problem with that.

I don't have a legal issue with that either.

At the end of the day, though, I do support the agenda Trump ran and won on, not so much Trump himself. Trump just happened to be the voice for that agenda that could get elected.

No, you support him because as long as he signs your cheques, you don't care what he does.

That is the difference between you and I. You not only oppose Trump because you think he is incompetent, but you oppose the agenda he is pursuing as well. Haven't you said that you would rather not see Pence take over because he would be more effective at pursuing an agenda you disagree with?

My main issue is he is incompetent, my issue with you is, you don't care -as long as you get what you want-.
Pence could take over, and no, I would rather not see that on partisan grounds, but at least he will only bend -YOU- over, not the rest of us. Quite frankly, my distaste of Pence is for the benefit of Americans, not me.

You say I don't understand being in your shoes? How many times did I express my opinion that the prior occupant of the white house was not fit for the job? Hell, I wanted to see him impeached for refusing to enforce the laws of the land that he didn't agree with. Or his "world apology tour" in the first few years of his run? Or the pile of lies, falsehoods and outright BS that is Obamacare?

I wanted you to give me a -reason- not a partisan hack job, and you can't. All you can give me is "I don't like it" and "I lost my doctor" Guess what, a few million people who didn't have doctors got them at the cost of "yours", but you don't care about them, you only care about yourself. Your desired policies have shut down tens to hundreds of healthcare providers across the US, but -YOUR- loss, well, that's special.

Such a short memory. There certainly are rules in the primaries. Such as the Democrats' "superdelegates", which the management of the party forced to vote for Hilary. Yes, this was all within the rules. And Hilary eventually did win the vote count in the primary.

The superdelegates were not used, and yes, she won, so Bernie bro's were just morons.

But how many Sanders supporters saw the handwriting on the wall; that the DNC was going to do whatever it took to run Hilary and therefore gave up? As I recall, there were a number of news articles about Sanders' supporters not supporting Hilary. I maintain that if the DNC hadn't publicly endorsed and took actions to support Hilary over Sanders, Sanders would likely have been the Dem's nominee, and would have gone on to beat Trump in the general election.

You maintain a lie, she won the primary.
Sanders -may- have beaten trump, but that has no connection to him loosing the primary, they are separate issues.

[Annoyed]

Well, it isn't by privatizing it to make it a bureaucracy that puts profit over the service they're supposed to provide and putting it out of the reach of the less fortunate in society. That doesn't work for medical care and will be even more disastrous when fully applied to education.

Well, take a look at a liberal government's example of "less fortunate".
NY state enacted a program giving FREE college education to the "less fortunate". The "less fortunate" being defined as those making less than $125K/Year.

Excuse me? You make more than 3 times what I make, and my taxes are going to pay for your kids college? That's nuts.

[Annoyed]

The superdelegates were not used, and yes, she won, so Bernie bro's were just morons.

You maintain a lie, she won the primary.
Sanders -may- have beaten trump, but that has no connection to him loosing the primary, they are separate issues.

Oh? And who did the superdelegates vote for?

You don't think that the national party leadership's blatant backing of Hilary discouraged Sanders supporters? I seem to recall a few news articles where Sanders supporters were saying that they would sit 2016 out rather than support Hilary. That couldn't have changed the outcome of the primary?

[LtColCarter]

I thought Trump only hires the best?

The best of the worst...maybe?