(03-30-2017 04:11 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]Team over country... team over country. Been hearing this for years as a criticism of the Dems. Now the some folks are critical of those who are putting country over team.
Just one more time Trump makes me say **** him. "Get on the team" my ass, shitstain. How about YOU get behind an actually good bill. YOU get on board.
Country over team is a great concept until it gets practical. Most are willing to go team over country if it benefits them in the short term.
On another note, we should never hear "team over country" used as an insult EVER again.
(03-30-2017 04:19 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 04:11 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]Team over country... team over country. Been hearing this for years as a criticism of the Dems. Now the some folks are critical of those who are putting country over team.
Just one more time Trump makes me say **** him. "Get on the team" my ass, shitstain. How about YOU get behind an actually good bill. YOU get on board.
setting goals and accomplishing is what DJT is attempting to spearhead.....you're just too dense b/c the leaves get in the way....
Setting some mighty low goals. To low for any leaves to be obscuring any view. Maybe you were referring to some shrubbery.
(03-30-2017 03:02 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]I told you guys my opinion on Trump earlier, i.e. he's not a conservative. He's a pragmatist. Don't be surprised if he actually does some things the Dems would favor.
The upside is the opponent he beat would have done nothing but things the democrats would like.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-house-u...1490828436
"On the night of Nov. 8, 2016, after it was clear that Donald Trump had upset Hillary Clinton, there was broad agreement that one word described the American electorate’s purpose: change. Voters wanted change from the status quo.
Last week, not 100 days into the Trump presidency, the members of the House Freedom Caucus decided that the 2016 election was not about change. It was instead about legislative gridlock, with the bitterly ironic difference that these 25 or so self-described conservatives have locked up their own party.
Democrats need 24 pickups to regain control of the House. There are 23 Republicans running from districts Mrs. Clinton won. After the 2018 midterms, history may record that the Republican Party lost House control to the Democrats around 2 p.m. on Thursday, March 23, 2017.
That was when Republican members from closely contested congressional districts—such as Virginia’s Barbara Comstock and New York’s John Faso—announced they would vote against the health-care reform bill.
The Freedom Caucus, whose leaders are from “safe” districts, opened a Pandora’s box that pushed these Republicans into impossible vulnerability on the health-care bill. Now Democrats will exploit this vulnerability on every issue before the House.
Meet the House Un-Freedom Caucus."
(03-30-2017 04:11 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]those who are putting country over team.
Sure as heck wasn't the FC. They won't support a bill unless it hurts the country.
And certainly isn't libertarians. The definition of their mission is tearing down the country.
(03-30-2017 04:22 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]no you don't....
If you're not voting, you're part of the problem!
(03-30-2017 04:34 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]The upside is the opponent he beat would have done nothing but things the democrats would like.
Obama was bipartisan, and so too would've been HRC.
Alas, we'll never know what could've been ...
The point is that its not just "team." Its improving things vs. standing on principles and allowing things to remain worse.
It is possible to change and then later change some more. They are letting the perfect get in the way of the better.
We are using words like "improving" very loosely. I can agree that it's the intention, but very possibly not the outcome.
(03-30-2017 03:02 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]I told you guys my opinion on Trump earlier, i.e. he's not a conservative. He's a pragmatist. Don't be surprised if he actually does some things the Dems would favor.
If he is indeed a pragmatist, he didn't exactly set up a pragmatic supporting cast.
(03-30-2017 04:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 04:11 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]those who are putting country over team.
Sure as heck wasn't the FC. They won't support a bill unless it hurts the country.
And certainly isn't libertarians. The definition of their mission is tearing down the country.
(03-30-2017 04:22 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]no you don't....
If you're not voting, you're part of the problem!
(03-30-2017 04:34 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]The upside is the opponent he beat would have done nothing but things the democrats would like.
Obama was bipartisan, and so too would've been HRC.
Alas, we'll never know what could've been ...
Obama wasn't bipartisan. Even George Washington was partisan. Obama was a mid-2000s democrat. Against illegal immigration. Was against the prospect of a federal decision on gay marriage. A Lou Dobbs position.
Now I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion due to the makeup of this board, but I think Obama would've definitely been favorable to Republicans, but like the democrats of today, they dedicated 8 years into attempting to take away the legitimacy of his presidency.
(03-30-2017 05:10 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 04:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 04:11 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]those who are putting country over team.
Sure as heck wasn't the FC. They won't support a bill unless it hurts the country.
And certainly isn't libertarians. The definition of their mission is tearing down the country.
(03-30-2017 04:22 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]no you don't....
If you're not voting, you're part of the problem!
(03-30-2017 04:34 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]The upside is the opponent he beat would have done nothing but things the democrats would like.
Obama was bipartisan, and so too would've been HRC.
Alas, we'll never know what could've been ...
Obama wasn't bipartisan. Even George Washington was partisan. Obama was a mid-2000s democrat. Against illegal immigration. Was against the prospect of a federal decision on gay marriage. A Lou Dobbs position.
Now I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion due to the makeup of this board, but I think Obama would've definitely been favorable to Republicans, but like the democrats of today, they dedicated 8 years into attempting to take away the legitimacy of his presidency.
He was immediately dismissive of the Republicans, attacking their motives and throwing, "Elections have consequences" in their face. Obama is an arrogant, narcissistic jerk. Now that he's gone, you see a few things written about how Democratic politicians didn't even like him.
(03-30-2017 05:25 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 05:10 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 04:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 04:11 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]those who are putting country over team.
Sure as heck wasn't the FC. They won't support a bill unless it hurts the country.
And certainly isn't libertarians. The definition of their mission is tearing down the country.
(03-30-2017 04:22 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]no you don't....
If you're not voting, you're part of the problem!
(03-30-2017 04:34 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]The upside is the opponent he beat would have done nothing but things the democrats would like.
Obama was bipartisan, and so too would've been HRC.
Alas, we'll never know what could've been ...
Obama wasn't bipartisan. Even George Washington was partisan. Obama was a mid-2000s democrat. Against illegal immigration. Was against the prospect of a federal decision on gay marriage. A Lou Dobbs position.
Now I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion due to the makeup of this board, but I think Obama would've definitely been favorable to Republicans, but like the democrats of today, they dedicated 8 years into attempting to take away the legitimacy of his presidency.
He was immediately dismissive of the Republicans, attacking their motives and throwing, "Elections have consequences" in their face. Obama is an arrogant, narcissistic jerk. Now that he's gone, you see a few things written about how Democratic politicians didn't even like him.
I'm not going to convince you otherwise so I'm not going to try to, but you cannot have problems with arrogance and narcissism if you voted for Trump.
(03-30-2017 04:41 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-house-u...1490828436
"On the night of Nov. 8, 2016, after it was clear that Donald Trump had upset Hillary Clinton, there was broad agreement that one word described the American electorate’s purpose: change. Voters wanted change from the status quo.
Last week, not 100 days into the Trump presidency, the members of the House Freedom Caucus decided that the 2016 election was not about change. It was instead about legislative gridlock, with the bitterly ironic difference that these 25 or so self-described conservatives have locked up their own party.
Democrats need 24 pickups to regain control of the House. There are 23 Republicans running from districts Mrs. Clinton won. After the 2018 midterms, history may record that the Republican Party lost House control to the Democrats around 2 p.m. on Thursday, March 23, 2017.
That was when Republican members from closely contested congressional districts—such as Virginia’s Barbara Comstock and New York’s John Faso—announced they would vote against the health-care reform bill.
The Freedom Caucus, whose leaders are from “safe” districts, opened a Pandora’s box that pushed these Republicans into impossible vulnerability on the health-care bill. Now Democrats will exploit this vulnerability on every issue before the House.
Meet the House Un-Freedom Caucus."
What complete and utter garbage. Fake news. [/align]The WSJ doesn't speak for the middle class voters of this country. The WSJ doesn't care that Ryancare would be as big a drain on government spending as Obamacare was. Trump has aligned himself with the same swamp rats in the republican party, he claimed he was going to expose and run out of Washington. The Ryancare deal was not substantially different from Obamacare. What the Freedom Caucus did was hold the republican party to the standard they promised the voters in November. But, the WSJ doesn't care to report that.
As for these representatives in contested districts... I don't care about their political future. Those seats belong to the people. Too many politicians are focused on defending seats instead of do what the voters sent them to do. These representatives all talked about repealing Obamacare. Somewhere along the way, they added the replace part. Now they want both done at the same time. Does the WSJ call out the establishment Rinos for moving the goalposts? No.
Trump is making a very bad mistake by attacking the Freedom Caucus. Their electorate likes them much more then they like Trump. In Texas, we don't take too kindly to New York billionaires calling out our elected officials for doing are will. His stupid talk will only lead to Texas Freedom Caucus members winning reelection by larger margins then last time. And, that will be very embarrassing for Trump.
(03-30-2017 04:59 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 03:02 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]I told you guys my opinion on Trump earlier, i.e. he's not a conservative. He's a pragmatist. Don't be surprised if he actually does some things the Dems would favor.
If he is indeed a pragmatist, he didn't exactly set up a pragmatic supporting cast.
He ran on a GOP ticket, so he had to get in bed with certain people. Case in point the religious right. Trump is as religious as a skyscraper. Yet he rubbed elbows with them. Sometimes you have to associate with those you have to in order to get what you need.
(03-30-2017 05:31 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 05:25 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 05:10 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 04:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 04:11 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]those who are putting country over team.
Sure as heck wasn't the FC. They won't support a bill unless it hurts the country.
And certainly isn't libertarians. The definition of their mission is tearing down the country.
(03-30-2017 04:22 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]no you don't....
If you're not voting, you're part of the problem!
(03-30-2017 04:34 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]The upside is the opponent he beat would have done nothing but things the democrats would like.
Obama was bipartisan, and so too would've been HRC.
Alas, we'll never know what could've been ...
Obama wasn't bipartisan. Even George Washington was partisan. Obama was a mid-2000s democrat. Against illegal immigration. Was against the prospect of a federal decision on gay marriage. A Lou Dobbs position.
Now I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion due to the makeup of this board, but I think Obama would've definitely been favorable to Republicans, but like the democrats of today, they dedicated 8 years into attempting to take away the legitimacy of his presidency.
He was immediately dismissive of the Republicans, attacking their motives and throwing, "Elections have consequences" in their face. Obama is an arrogant, narcissistic jerk. Now that he's gone, you see a few things written about how Democratic politicians didn't even like him.
I'm not going to convince you otherwise so I'm not going to try to, but you cannot have problems with arrogance and narcissism if you voted for Trump.
You can if his opponent is Hillary Clinton! Trump was #17 of the 22 candidates on my list. Probably #18 behind Webb.
(03-30-2017 08:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 04:41 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-house-u...1490828436
"On the night of Nov. 8, 2016, after it was clear that Donald Trump had upset Hillary Clinton, there was broad agreement that one word described the American electorate’s purpose: change. Voters wanted change from the status quo.
Last week, not 100 days into the Trump presidency, the members of the House Freedom Caucus decided that the 2016 election was not about change. It was instead about legislative gridlock, with the bitterly ironic difference that these 25 or so self-described conservatives have locked up their own party.
Democrats need 24 pickups to regain control of the House. There are 23 Republicans running from districts Mrs. Clinton won. After the 2018 midterms, history may record that the Republican Party lost House control to the Democrats around 2 p.m. on Thursday, March 23, 2017.
That was when Republican members from closely contested congressional districts—such as Virginia’s Barbara Comstock and New York’s John Faso—announced they would vote against the health-care reform bill.
The Freedom Caucus, whose leaders are from “safe” districts, opened a Pandora’s box that pushed these Republicans into impossible vulnerability on the health-care bill. Now Democrats will exploit this vulnerability on every issue before the House.
Meet the House Un-Freedom Caucus."
What complete and utter garbage. Fake news. [/align]The WSJ doesn't speak for the middle class voters of this country. The WSJ doesn't care that Ryancare would be as big a drain on government spending as Obamacare was. Trump has aligned himself with the same swamp rats in the republican party, he claimed he was going to expose and run out of Washington. The Ryancare deal was not substantially different from Obamacare. What the Freedom Caucus did was hold the republican party to the standard they promised the voters in November. But, the WSJ doesn't care to report that.
As for these representatives in contested districts... I don't care about their political future. Those seats belong to the people. Too many politicians are focused on defending seats instead of do what the voters sent them to do. These representatives all talked about repealing Obamacare. Somewhere along the way, they added the replace part. Now they want both done at the same time. Does the WSJ call out the establishment Rinos for moving the goalposts? No.
Trump is making a very bad mistake by attacking the Freedom Caucus. Their electorate likes them much more then they like Trump. In Texas, we don't take too kindly to New York billionaires calling out our elected officials for doing are will. His stupid talk will only lead to Texas Freedom Caucus members winning reelection by larger margins then last time. And, that will be very embarrassing for Trump.
CBO says it saves $300 billion. So you seem to be the one believing fake news.
A lot of the Freedom Caucus types voted for McMullin and Johnson.
(03-30-2017 08:58 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 08:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 04:41 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-house-u...1490828436
"On the night of Nov. 8, 2016, after it was clear that Donald Trump had upset Hillary Clinton, there was broad agreement that one word described the American electorate’s purpose: change. Voters wanted change from the status quo.
Last week, not 100 days into the Trump presidency, the members of the House Freedom Caucus decided that the 2016 election was not about change. It was instead about legislative gridlock, with the bitterly ironic difference that these 25 or so self-described conservatives have locked up their own party.
Democrats need 24 pickups to regain control of the House. There are 23 Republicans running from districts Mrs. Clinton won. After the 2018 midterms, history may record that the Republican Party lost House control to the Democrats around 2 p.m. on Thursday, March 23, 2017.
That was when Republican members from closely contested congressional districts—such as Virginia’s Barbara Comstock and New York’s John Faso—announced they would vote against the health-care reform bill.
The Freedom Caucus, whose leaders are from “safe” districts, opened a Pandora’s box that pushed these Republicans into impossible vulnerability on the health-care bill. Now Democrats will exploit this vulnerability on every issue before the House.
Meet the House Un-Freedom Caucus."
What complete and utter garbage. Fake news. [/align]The WSJ doesn't speak for the middle class voters of this country. The WSJ doesn't care that Ryancare would be as big a drain on government spending as Obamacare was. Trump has aligned himself with the same swamp rats in the republican party, he claimed he was going to expose and run out of Washington. The Ryancare deal was not substantially different from Obamacare. What the Freedom Caucus did was hold the republican party to the standard they promised the voters in November. But, the WSJ doesn't care to report that.
As for these representatives in contested districts... I don't care about their political future. Those seats belong to the people. Too many politicians are focused on defending seats instead of do what the voters sent them to do. These representatives all talked about repealing Obamacare. Somewhere along the way, they added the replace part. Now they want both done at the same time. Does the WSJ call out the establishment Rinos for moving the goalposts? No.
Trump is making a very bad mistake by attacking the Freedom Caucus. Their electorate likes them much more then they like Trump. In Texas, we don't take too kindly to New York billionaires calling out our elected officials for doing are will. His stupid talk will only lead to Texas Freedom Caucus members winning reelection by larger margins then last time. And, that will be very embarrassing for Trump.
CBO says it saves $300 billion. So you seem to be the one believing fake news.
A lot of the Freedom Caucus types voted for McMullin and Johnson.
Again, more fake news. Ryancare's final incarnation was only going to reduce the cost on taxpayers by $150 billion over a 10 year period. That's $15 billion per year. Not good enough. In fact, the word "saves" shouldn't even be included in a report about Ryancare. There is no saving at all in Ryancare. Ryancare was a token repeal in name only. It was still going to continue the major financial burden currently on the backs of the middle class. What the CBO is calling a savings is really just a slightly reduced price compared to Obamacare. Ryancare had a ridiculous price of $1.2 trillion compared to Obamacare's $1.35 trillion. That is still way too much of a burden for the middle class taxpayer. That isn't the change America voted for in November. Just give us a clean repeal. Then congress can work to replace it.
I did not vote for McMullin or Johnson.
(03-30-2017 03:02 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]I told you guys my opinion on Trump earlier, i.e. he's not a conservative. He's a pragmatist. Don't be surprised if he actually does some things the Dems would favor.
that was the experiment that is now playing out.....that's what any 3rd party should be willing to accept now that it's happened....
the fc faction boggles my mind....
and I said all that from day 1 when he announced....
I hardly can definitively state it will work moving forward....but I do know if it doesn't???
#costafishing
(03-30-2017 05:10 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ]Now I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion due to the makeup of this board, but I think Obama would've definitely been favorable to Republicans, but like the democrats of today, they dedicated 8 years into attempting to take away the legitimacy of his presidency.
IDK nomad, looking back he basically told the GOP, from day one, you can come for the ride, just get in the back seat...
His signature achievement, Obamacare, was passed in 2010 and was so uni-partisan that it had to wait until there were 60 democratic senators.
I think he would talk a good game about working together but to him working together meant "give me everything I want". Whether it was him or the people around him who drove that attitude is the question.