Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Well, yeah, but that was a Democrat president saying that. When the Democrats win the White House, they are supposed to do what they were elected to do and for Republicans to stand in the way of that is obstructionist and wrong. When a Republican wins the White House, they aren't supposed to do what they were elected to do, they are supposed compromise and work with the Democrats to come to a solution that the Democrats like.

Everyone knows this.

The caveat here is that a Trump was elected. He was elected as a Republican, but he doesn't fit as a typical Republican. He is a business man and appears to be attacking things as a business man and bringing in other successful business men to help him implement his goals. Those Democrats that are trying to treat him like a typical Republican are having a hard time because he doesn't respond the way he should in their eyes. So then you have the others in the Democrat party that go total batsh!t crazy and keep trying to overturn the election even though its over. An example of this is Rosie O'Donnell who is calling for the initiation of martial law and for the current administration to keep power until the Russian influence in the election can be studied, determined that is the only reason DJT won, and the White House handed over to HRC who totally deserves it. Or, not so far over the cuckoo's a Cory Booker who testifies that Sessions is the biggest racist POS ever and giving him the AG post will take us back to a pre-Civil War South footing for rights in this country, but less than a year ago spoke about how great it was to work with Sessions in recognizing & praising civil rights activists. Apparently the reasoning is, he is trying to set himself up as the front-runner for the 2020 Democrat nomination for president.

DJT is not a true Republican and thus will not act as one, and while I believe him to be a total douche, I truly have no full idea how he will be as president.

See my post above. It starts to explain why you notice this seeming discrepancy.

Since Reagan, all Republican Presidential Candidates have run to take things away from people. I didn't say rights, because some people disagree about what it is that is being taken away.

But Republicans have run to take away. They have made it look like they were giving something. But not so much.

The key to their success is they convince everybody that the are taking away from the 'other guy,' which is great for Americans that act like they are Christian on the outside, but enjoy being barbarians deep down inside.

The majority maybe, but not all Americans, by the way. This cycle it was a relatively small but powerful group aided by the one vote equals more if you live in the right state provided for by the Electoral College. (Which I am against eliminating, by the way.)

And for the sake of clarity Republicans just take away rights by ripping them, Democrats do the same thing by stupidity : dumb programs, wandering around problems instead of dealing with them, etc. Both parties are equally bad. But when Republicans take over, you end up with a Depression, Recession, war, Prohibition, or some such stupid shit.
 
Last edited:

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,159
Reaction score
3,991
Well, yeah, but that was a Democrat president saying that. When the Democrats win the White House, they are supposed to do what they were elected to do and for Republicans to stand in the way of that is obstructionist and wrong. When a Republican wins the White House, they aren't supposed to do what they were elected to do, they are supposed compromise and work with the Democrats to come to a solution that the Democrats like.

Everyone knows this.

The caveat here is that a Trump was elected. He was elected as a Republican, but he doesn't fit as a typical Republican. He is a business man and appears to be attacking things as a business man and bringing in other successful business men to help him implement his goals. Those Democrats that are trying to treat him like a typical Republican are having a hard time because he doesn't respond the way he should in their eyes. So then you have the others in the Democrat party that go total batsh!t crazy and keep trying to overturn the election even though its over. An example of this is Rosie O'Donnell who is calling for the initiation of martial law and for the current administration to keep power until the Russian influence in the election can be studied, determined that is the only reason DJT won, and the White House handed over to HRC who totally deserves it. Or, not so far over the cuckoo's a Cory Booker who testifies that Sessions is the biggest racist POS ever and giving him the AG post will take us back to a pre-Civil War South footing for rights in this country, but less than a year ago spoke about how great it was to work with Sessions in recognizing & praising civil rights activists. Apparently the reasoning is, he is trying to set himself up as the front-runner for the 2020 Democrat nomination for president.

DJT is not a true Republican and thus will not act as one, and while I believe him to be a total douche, I truly have no full idea how he will be as president.

The president elect is the embodiment of the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove campaign strategy taken to its logical extreme coupled with a candidate with zero filter/tact/class/civility or whatever you want to call it. So yes in that sense, he is a "true" Republican and yes he is "acting" like what I would expect based on that lineage and his personality.
 
Last edited:

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Donald Trump is the embodiment of the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove campaign strategy taken to its logical extreme. So yes, he is a "true" Republican in that sense.

I suppose a better way to put it is that he isn't a conservative.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Nice article. I think you should look at what actually happened as opposed to what was said.

John Roberts received a confirmation hearing and vote to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Sam Alito? How about the Ben Bernakie appointment? His administration supported an effort along with the democrats to pass comprehensive immigration reform, that was shot down by...his own party. All of this after the biggest foreign policy debacle of my lifetime...the Iraq War. So, yeah trying to draw some sort of equivalency between the two situations is complete bullshit.

I don't know who Ben Bernakie is, so I'm assuming that you meant Ben Bernanke? What do all three of the appointments you mentioned have in common? They were all confirmed by the 109th US Congress. Both houses had a Republican majority. So trying to use them as some kind of refutation of the Democrats being obstructionist is complete bullshit!
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,159
Reaction score
3,991
I suppose a better way to put it is that he isn't a conservative.

I would agree with that completely. He has pissed all over long standing traditions such as the releasing of tax returns and more importantly basic civility. His philandering, compulsive lying, vulgarity, ostentatious...based on that one would think he was the new mayor of Toronto, so yeah. Lol.
 
Last edited:

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,159
Reaction score
3,991
I don't know who Ben Bernakie is, so I'm assuming that you meant Ben Bernanke? What do all three of the appointments you mentioned have in common? They were all confirmed by the 109th US Congress. Both houses had a Republican majority. So trying to use them as some kind of refutation of the Democrats being obstructionist is complete bullshit!

I do not recall any of the above mentioned nominees being filibustered (which they
could have been). So yeah, the democrats didn't really do anything except work with Bush on immigration reform and vote yes on a war his administration cooked up. All of which kind of proves my point.
 
Last edited:

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,941
Reaction score
6,164
I would agree with that completely. He has pissed all over long standing traditions such as the releasing of tax returns and more importantly basic civility. His philandering, compulsive lying, vulgarity, ostentatious...so yeah. Lol.

I suppose that if he changed his name to Bill and supported the causes you favor, all those things would be charming and no big deal though, right?
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Wow! It's gunna be a real long 4 years...especially for some of you.

No, it's gonna be a real long 4 years for all of us.

In fact, I will bet you a trillion vbucks that I am right, payable in on January 20, 2020 - if I am still around.

As far as 'All of Us'
Offer excludes any of 'us' devoid of a soul, or human emotions. Also excludes Donald Trump. Offer good in 50 states.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,159
Reaction score
3,991
I suppose that if he changed his name to Bill and supported the causes you favor, all those things would be charming and no big deal though, right?

No. I don't play the game of "well he did it too/first". That's the kind of reasoning my kid used when he was 3. I'm glad he got past that by 4. Now, I have voted for Nader most of my adult life because I feel he understands what good public policy is. This last go around I voted and campaigned for Sanders, again because I think he understands what good public policy is. When Bill Clinton ran I wrote in my good friend Glenn. Anyhow, Clinton was basically a moderate republican in the Reagan mold so no I do not hold him in any sort of high regard. What the DNC did in attacking Nader and Sanders instead of listening to them was pathetic. I think Dianne Fienstein is a jerk for trying to use her influence to allow some friends to operate a commercial oyster farm in a national wilderness area. So, there's that.

Now here's the thing with the Donald. He obviously has no regard for the public process and or public institutions. Every president preceding him did. So yeah, in that sense he's by far the least "conservative" President ever.
 
Last edited:

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
I do not recall any of the above mentioned nominees being filibustered (which they
could have been). So yeah, the democrats didn't really do anything except work with Bush on immigration reform. Which kind of proves my point.

John Kerry tried, unsuccessfully, to filibuster Samuel Alito. He was unable to garner enough votes for the filibuster. Maybe because he was vacationing in Switzerland while the confirmation hearings were underway?

I've never said that the Republicans have not been obstructionist with President Obama. They have, and I spoke out against it, on this board, back when the Republicans opted to allow the government to be shut down. But for Buster to act like the Republicans suddenly invented obstructionism during the Obama presidency, is what is complete and utter bullshit.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,413
Reaction score
5,839
I've never said that the Republicans have not been obstructionist with President Obama. They have, and I spoke out against it, on this board, back when the Republicans opted to allow the government to be shut down. But for Buster to act like the Republicans suddenly invented obstructionism during the Obama presidency, is what is complete and utter bullshit.

I think the era of obstructionism started with the blue sweep of 2006. The democrats shut it down for the last two years of Bush as his popularity was dropping. Republicans pointing at obstruction is as bad as democrats pretending they wouldn't have done the same with the supreme court. Wait til old lady Ginsburg keels over in 3 years and see what Schumer thinks then. It's all hypocritical games. Called politics.

I am hoping that having an ideologically empty POTUS helps push some stuff from the middle that can break the ice. My hope is that he doesn't blow his powder on healthcare early, like another underperforming president.

Also, having been glued to the confirmations. I had no opinion of Tillerson, now I like him better than Trump. I hope Trump is terrified of Mattis and listens to everything he says. Both would be better men for the job, but I'll take them being in his ear.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,941
Reaction score
6,164
No. I don't play the game of "well he did it too/first". That's the kind of reasoning my kid used when he was 3. I'm glad he got past that by 4.

My comment had nothing to do with justifying Trump's behavior because Clinton did it first/too. It was a shot at the hypocrisy from the Left. The people who are so up in arms about what a crude, self-aggrandizing, groping, vulgarian he is are the same ones who adored Bill Clinton and served as tireless apologists for him... all because he was on their side. And btw, I think Trump is as bad as Bill. I'm just amused at how the same people who so vigorously defended and worshipped Bill are appalled by Trump and can't see the irony in that.
 

Rizzophil

Well-known member
Messages
2,431
Reaction score
579
Anyone care to speculate what Obama could have done with putting us 10 trillion in the hole?

Every American gets a brand new car. Every person in poverty gets a new house. Etc etc.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
3,267
The president elect is the embodiment of the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove campaign strategy taken to its logical extreme coupled with a candidate with zero filter/tact/class/civility or whatever you want to call it. So yes in that sense, he is a "true" Republican and yes he is "acting" like what I would expect based on that lineage and his personality.

What about Rove or his campaign strategy is similar to Trump? I remember Rove relying on a strong ground game, great fund raising and neocon approach. Trump did the exact opposite and was criticized by Rove and many on the right. His ground game was completely unorganized, he didn't raise money worth a shit and embarrassed and criticized neocons throughout his campaign.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,620
Reaction score
20,108
I would agree with that completely. He has pissed all over long standing traditions such as the releasing of tax returns and more importantly basic civility. His philandering, compulsive lying, vulgarity, ostentatious...based on that one would think he was the new mayor of Toronto, so yeah. Lol.

I didn't vote for Trump, but I will say that I have been enjoying him making everyone uncomfortable. He needs to relax and not respond to every little thing on Twitter, but he is sending a message that doing things the same way over and over for the past 50-60 years isn't going to happen on his watch.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,496
Is there a way to see the actual voting results of last night's Senate gathering? I see the Rs have it 51-48, but I read somewhere that Cruz and McCain voted w/ the Ds and that some of the Ds, like Cory Booker, voted with the Rs. I'm just curious if this is accurate. I don't trust what MSM has to say about anything at the moment.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,413
Reaction score
5,839
Is there a way to see the actual voting results of last night's Senate gathering? I see the Rs have it 51-48, but I read somewhere that Cruz and McCain voted w/ the Ds and that some of the Ds, like Cory Booker, voted with the Rs. I'm just curious if this is accurate. I don't trust what MSM has to say about anything at the moment.

Last nights voting on what? All votes are on the senate site.

The budget one that I think you are referencing:

U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote

Rand Paul was the only Republican Nay, Democrats lined up no.
 
Last edited:
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Anyone care to speculate what Obama could have done with putting us 10 trillion in the hole?

Every American gets a brand new car. Every person in poverty gets a new house. Etc etc.

I don't think you know how to read, because you've been given accurate and fair context to that $10 trillion number multiple times in the past few weeks.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,706
Reaction score
6,014
Even so, I'd like to see both sides working for what they think is best (even if I disagree with their view of that) and trying to actually govern and work for the American people instead of making every decision based on what will help their reelection efforts and hurt the other side.

Your point about there no longer being a consensus on what the common good is, is all too true. I'm starting to believe there's no longer a way for the two sides to live together and have a functioning republic due to the vast chasm between our two sides' values & views. The two sides have moved so far apart that there's very little common ground any longer, nor any respect for each other's views.

I wasn't the one who brought up a call for bipartisanship. Bishop did. There's your hypocrite.

How is he a hypocrite?? His post doesn't call out one side or anything.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,941
Reaction score
6,164
I wasn't the one who brought up a call for bipartisanship. Bishop did. There's your hypocrite.

I didn't mention bipartisanship. I said it would be nice if both sides would govern and do what's right for the country instead of spending all their time & energy attacking each other. I realize the difference is subtle, but not hard to grasp.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
2,496
Last nights voting on what? All votes are on the senate site.

The budget one that I think you are referencing:

U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote

Rand Paul was the only Republican Nay, Democrats lined up no.

This is why I asked:

Robert Reich:
Last night, Senate Republicans took their first major step toward repealing the Affordable Care Act -- approving a budget blueprint that would allow them to gut the health care law with just 51 votes, without the threat of a Democratic filibuster.
The final vote, which ended just before 1:30 a.m., followed votes on numerous amendments. Senate Republicans voted against amendments that would:
1. Allow young people up to 26 to stay on insurance;
2. Lower prescription drug cost by allowing importation of pharmaceuticals from Canada;
3. Guarantee that women do not pay more for insurance than men because of their gender;
4. Guarantee that rural hospitals will stay open;
5. Guarantee that those with pre-existing conditions will not be charged more and will be protected.
Remember these votes. Remember this is the Republican Party. Individual Democratic senators are sticking up for what's good for America. We also need a Democratic Party that's not just a giant fund-raising machine but a movement -- a party that can turn the outrage most Americans now feel into a tidal wave of organized indignation that will win back the Senate and the House.
What do you think?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/health-care-congress-vote-a-rama.html?_r=1

And then later I came across a reporter claiming that some Dems had aligned with Repubs and a few Repubs had rejected the vote. So basically, I'm just trying to find out what's true. I pretty much don't trust anyone in the media right now.

For the record, I like Reich in general, but he has been unbelievably annoying to me, personally, the last like 6 months. I know most, if not all Conservatives, probably hate him, so no need to waste time debating him.

Thanks for the link.
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
As it relates to the current state of our politics, Bogs, you might have an argument if the American Left hadn't fully embraced neoliberal economics after getting shellacked by Reagan in the 80s. So there's no real alternative on offer anymore.
 
Last edited:
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
I wasn't the one who brought up a call for bipartisanship. Bishop did. There's your hypocrite.

How is he a hypocrite?? His post doesn't call out one side or anything.

I didn't mention bipartisanship. I said it would be nice if both sides would govern and do what's right for the country instead of spending all their time & energy attacking each other. I realize the difference is subtle, but not hard to grasp.

I usually don't get involved in that aspect of the argument this thread is. But I just have to say, that NDakota, I can't believe you are that unsophisticated, tone deaf to the behaviors set within posts. Buster may have used a different word than I.

I was going to say something to you Bishop, about a couple of your posts. You know I respect you, but a couple of those posts were way beneath you.

I got the strong impression that you knew/know how weak the argument supporting much of what the Republicans have done in the last say 45 years is, so you wait until someone makes a comment about it, and then take a passive-aggressive swipe at the person making the comment inferring the Democrats haven't done better.

Well, duh! Neither party has much but numb-nuts as a rule. I am really surprised that posters (the ones I consider pretty enlightened, at least) don't see past ideology as a solution, and look for a candidate with a real fucking plan, and an attitude to fix things.

For any of the ideologues, fixing things is shifting things so they will be better for the like minded, everyone else be damned.

Now, Buster on the other hand, may have picked 'the wrong word,' but he puts twenty times the thought into solutions independent of political beliefs, and continues to think of the problems we discuss outside the limits of his own belief structure or his own self interest.

If you want to see how important that is, and how bad bowing to ideology is, start with my previous post, and really research the numb-nuts players that had every chance to avoid the Great Depression, but chose to let the country flounder before they would admit the failure of their ideology.

As I have said before, this I see as W's only redeeming quality. He gave up everything he worked so hard for, including his reputation (history's view of him) to save America from the ruin his administration started. It wasn't enough, because even he couldn't fathom the stupidity he wrought. But he made a small attempt at correction.

Which is a nice segue into the next administration. Watch budget, taxes, and spending, and compare it to programs cut. This will show you how fast this coming administration moves through all phases of hot mess into dumpster fire.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,546
Reaction score
29,007
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Smooth transition: in last act before turning off lights, Obama builds wall to keep out Latinos<a href="https://t.co/AlS7y70Dkh">https://t.co/AlS7y70Dkh</a></p>— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) <a href="https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/819686481396690944">January 12, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The fuck?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top