The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

You can't even get through a sentence without reverting to right wing positions, what hope does anyone have of asking you to consider their positions?
I gave you reasons to reject trump, and they had nothing to do with partisanship, but the actual health of the US, at home and abroad.
You might as well just say MAGAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

There ARE no rules in a primary, it is a purely "take the pulse" system. They broke NO rules. Trump broke no rules by winning the primaries either.
It's not my fault that people are so politically ignorant to understand that.]

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.

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.

[Annoyed]

Yeah exactly what is this "right direction" that you want America to go in?

Please define this in bullet points

And I bet you thought I forgot about this. =)

First, the govt should be adhering to the Constitution, as written by the founding fathers or amended by the two processes that exist for amending it. This includes the 10th amendment, which was written to limit the federal government to the powers that the Constitution granted it. Our nation was designed to have a severely limited federal government, with much of the power reserved to the state level, which is close to the people and more readily kept in check by those people.

And I'm not saying that Democrats/Leftys are the only ones stretching these bounds, both sides do. One example was Bush II's auto and banking industry bailouts. I don't recall the authority to bail out a failed private business being listed anywhere in the Constitution.

2nd, And this ties in with the first point. The judiciary's role is to interpret the laws as they are written, not to create law out of thin air or "legislate from the bench" or in some cases actually overturn the direct will of the voters.

3rd, this country was founded on the idea of people being responsible for providing for themselves and the government staying out of their way so they could do so. But encouraged by generous welfare and other programs operated by the government, we have morphed into a society where a great many people don't even want to be responsible for themselves. They want to behave as irresponsibly as they wish and then expect society to pick up the inevitable tab.

4th, on the international front, we are far too much in the hands of the globalists, who want to relegate the interests of the United States to second place, behind those of the international corporations other nations. There are many examples of this, the various free trade deals which have decimated domestic industry are but one. The TPP and Climate deals are more of the same, as negotiated, they are against the best interests of the U.S. Yes, we should cooperate on an international level when our interests align, but when they don't, we should look out for our own interests, first, last and always.

[jelgate]

I find it hilarious and kind of sad how much Trump violates Annoyed's first two points

[SoulReaver]

as for his 3rd point

3rd, this country was founded on the idea of people being responsible for providing for themselves and the government staying out of their way so they could do so. But encouraged by generous welfare and other programs operated by the government, we have morphed into a society where a great many people don't even want to be responsible for themselves. They want to behave as irresponsibly as they wish and then expect society to pick up the inevitable tab.

in other words Life™ is sacred until you're born

[Coco Pops]

I find it hilarious and kind of sad how much Trump violates Annoyed's first two points

Heh.... I noticed that..

Has anyone heard the white house voicemail for their comments line? You have to hear this message. I think it's terrible that they made a political statement in a voicemail.

[Coco Pops]

And I bet you thought I forgot about this. =)

First, the govt should be adhering to the Constitution, as written by the founding fathers or amended by the two processes that exist for amending it. This includes the 10th amendment, which was written to limit the federal government to the powers that the Constitution granted it. Our nation was designed to have a severely limited federal government, with much of the power reserved to the state level, which is close to the people and more readily kept in check by those people.

And I'm not saying that Democrats/Leftys are the only ones stretching these bounds, both sides do. One example was Bush II's auto and banking industry bailouts. I don't recall the authority to bail out a failed private business being listed anywhere in the Constitution.

2nd, And this ties in with the first point. The judiciary's role is to interpret the laws as they are written, not to create law out of thin air or "legislate from the bench" or in some cases actually overturn the direct will of the voters.

3rd, this country was founded on the idea of people being responsible for providing for themselves and the government staying out of their way so they could do so. But encouraged by generous welfare and other programs operated by the government, we have morphed into a society where a great many people don't even want to be responsible for themselves. They want to behave as irresponsibly as they wish and then expect society to pick up the inevitable tab.

4th, on the international front, we are far too much in the hands of the globalists, who want to relegate the interests of the United States to second place, behind those of the international corporations other nations. There are many examples of this, the various free trade deals which have decimated domestic industry are but one. The TPP and Climate deals are more of the same, as negotiated, they are against the best interests of the U.S. Yes, we should cooperate on an international level when our interests align, but when they don't, we should look out for our own interests, first, last and always.

I didn't think you'd forget so thank you for posting.

Trump violates some or all of the first two points you made.

[Annoyed]

I didn't think you'd forget so thank you for posting.

Trump violates some or all of the first two points you made.

Just curious. How do you think he done that?

[Coco Pops]

Just curious. How do you think he done that?

Because he is having all the power and not the states....At least thats what I think. Plus his incredible thin skin and volatile nature. Even Bush wasn't this bad.

[SGalisa]

Republicans control both houses and the whitehouse so how in the hell can you spin this to blame democrats that you now have a government shutdown?

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.

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".

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.


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..!)

Someone explain how this can be spun that way?

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.

"Schumer Shutdown: Senate Democrats Brag About Having Votes to Shut Down Government via Filibuster"
By Guy Benson
Posted: Jan 19, 2018 -- 11:01 AM

There was a time, in the very recent past, when Democrats insisted that a partial government shutdown would usher in the apocalypse -- overwrought framing they promiscuously apply to numerous political debates -- and any attempt to extract policy concessions during a shutdown showdown was extreme recklessness...

Attention now shifts to the Senate, where Democrats are boasting to reporters that they've marshaled the requisite votes to block GOP attempts to keep the federal government open, via a filibuster. Even if every Senate Republican voted for the House-passed plan (Mitch McConnell's caucus has a few members who've vowed to vote no), 60 votes are required to overcome a potential minority filibuster. And Democrats are stating, quite openly, that they're ready to filibuster the GOP spending bill and force a shutdown unless they get their way on immigration. Chuck and Nancy are banking on two dynamics here: First, that the public will be inclined to blame any shutdown on the party that is intrinsically more hostile toward government (not a bad bet), and second, that the press will help them blame Republicans -- or at least muddy the waters (also a decent wager)....

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

[Annoyed]

Because he is having all the power and not the states....At least thats what I think. Plus his incredible thin skin and volatile nature. Even Bush wasn't this bad.

Where is he usurping states' rights? Immigration is clearly a federal matter, as is national defense, which are the issues he's being challenged on by the 9th Circus court. in other matters, he is lessening the impact of the feds; DeVos at Education and Pruitt at the EPA both want to shrink the impact of those agencies.

And thin skin, volatile nature, foot-in-mouth disease, etc.. are not Constitutional matters.

[Annoyed]

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.

You have no idea how bad this state is frakked up. Note my location tag under my avatar.
As I've said to MG, I really think you have to live here to understand just how far gone this state is.

[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.

Why?
They are not positive steps, just getting rid of things you don't like. Getting rid of what you don't like is not equal to being positive.

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.

So, you will take anyone who matches your agenda?
Good to know.

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.

And as a supporter of that voice, you are on the hook for every dumb-arse thing he says and 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?

No, within the scope of this discussion, it is only trumps incompetence I oppose. Pence being an effective pusher of your agenda is a separate issue.

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?

Why was Obama not fit for the job?
Forget policy, why was he -UNFIT- for the job.
I disagreed with Bush, both of them, I disagreed with Clinton, I never called them unfit.

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 rules are set by the party, hence, the rules are whatever they want, (so, no rules) and just as an aside, the superdelagates were not used in defeating Bernie.

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.

Bernie Bro's are as stupid as trump Ho's.
I liked Bernie, but he lost, and the idiots who cut off their nose to spite their face are pure morons. This is a perfect example of the LEFT/ democrats not understanding politics.

[LtColCarter]

In your opinion...DeVos in at Education are positive steps, beneficial to the country.

Oh wow...putting a woman who has no training in education in the position of Secretary of Education is beneficial to the country? She's never attended a public school nor have her children. The woman is an idgit!

And before you attempt to give me a litany on why she is beneficial to the country...let me stop you. I have 23 years of experience in education, I hold a Master's degree in Educational Leadership and a Doctorate in K-12 Educational Leadership. So, you cannot tell me or any of my colleagues in education that DeVos is beneficial to this country's educational system when I and many of my colleagues are far more qualified for the position of Secretary of Education than she is.

[Annoyed]

Oh wow...putting a woman who has no training in education in the position of Secretary of Education is beneficial to the country? She's never attended a public school nor have her children. The woman is an idgit!

And before you attempt to give me a litany on why she is beneficial to the country...let me stop you. I have 23 years of experience in education, I hold a Master's degree in Educational Leadership and a Doctorate in K-12 Educational Leadership. So, you cannot tell me or any of my colleagues in education that DeVos is beneficial to this country's educational system when I and many of my colleagues are far more qualified for the position of Secretary of Education than she is.

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.

[thekillman]

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