Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

How would you "break" this cycle?

Telling one side or the other to "grow up" isn't going to cut it.

Personally, I'd have to violate one particular part of the 1st Amendment: I'd shut down ALL 24 hour, cable news networks, at least temporarily. Come to think of it, I'd also pass a law that says there can be no advertising during local news (a subject brought up in a monologue during the Newsroom)... advertising money in the news means that the media can and will tailor the news to what makes them money (ie, a friend of mine who once worked in media tells me a story of when he was just starting out. At the local station he started at, it was near an auto manufacturer, the station was going to run a story against that auto manufacturer, they got wind and tell the station, "if you run that story, we'll pull all of our ads from your time slot")

Once you cut out the media hype/vitriol, you take out one of the key elements, IMO, that drives the partisan BS in congress.

It is pretty remarkable when you compare the content between pbs news and corporate news. Sure pbs is "boring", but I think that's a good thing. It allows for more rational thought and less emotional reaction. Even when they have the same pundits that appear on cnn or fox debating, on pbs they actually respond to the questions and dont constantly interrupt one another.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

How would you "break" this cycle?

Telling one side or the other to "grow up" isn't going to cut it.

Personally, I'd have to violate one particular part of the 1st Amendment: I'd shut down ALL 24 hour, cable news networks, at least temporarily. Come to think of it, I'd also pass a law that says there can be no advertising during local news (a subject brought up in a monologue during the Newsroom)... advertising money in the news means that the media can and will tailor the news to what makes them money (ie, a friend of mine who once worked in media tells me a story of when he was just starting out. At the local station he started at, it was near an auto manufacturer, the station was going to run a story against that auto manufacturer, they got wind and tell the station, "if you run that story, we'll pull all of our ads from your time slot")

Once you cut out the media hype/vitriol, you take out one of the key elements, IMO, that drives the partisan BS in congress.

I wouldn't go that far and I believe their are better avenues to address this.

Firstly, for the Elected Officials only (ie, only Prez, VP, Congressman/Senators), their *benefit* is strictly on what the government provides for the regular voters (ie, they don't get special treatment).

That means:
SS for their retirement
Medicare/VA for their healthcare

Things like that... then, you'll see more bi-partisan efforts to address any challenges with these programs that may arise. And because it's *bi-partisam", the acrimony should be dialed down a bit.

Secondly, the ignorance (I mean that in non-derogatory manner) of how our States Government functions is really, really high. The States don't really have a "say" in the Federal government and I think it's asinine that the Senate is directly voted by the constituents. Having the State Legislatures vote the Senators would hold these guys/gals more accountable imo. So *because* they're held accountable by the States, the level of discourse should be mitigated as well.

 whembly wrote:

I wouldn't go that far and I believe their are better avenues to address this.

Firstly, for the Elected Officials only (ie, only Prez, VP, Congressman/Senators), their *benefit* is strictly on what the government provides for the regular voters (ie, they don't get special treatment).

That means:
SS for their retirement
Medicare/VA for their healthcare

Things like that... then, you'll see more bi-partisan efforts to address any challenges with these programs that may arise. And because it's *bi-partisam", the acrimony should be dialed down a bit.

Secondly, the ignorance (I mean that in non-derogatory manner) of how our States Government functions is really, really high. The States don't really have a "say" in the Federal government and I think it's asinine that the Senate is directly voted by the constituents. Having the State Legislatures vote the Senators would hold these guys/gals more accountable imo. So *because* they're held accountable by the States, the level of discourse should be mitigated as well.

Ohh, "fixing" the media is just one thing I would do, if I could.

That said, I do agree that elected officials in congress/WH should only receive benefits while they are sitting. Rare exceptions for why I would think a person should get the current "retirement package" they get now, is if they actually make a career of it (staying as a sitting member of the house/senate for 30+ years, like your typical job in the private sector)

I don't think that that by itself would fix the problem either, as a number of congress critters were independently wealthy before they arrived in office, so what do they care about healthcare costs, or SS, they can retire off of a golden parachute from what they brought with them.

EDIT: Moving to ISIS thread as that's a more appropriate place for it.

 whembly wrote:
Obama needs to actually 'consult and cooperate' with the Senate, as in *work* with the Senate on his short-list... absent that, moderate his selection. (Kegan/Sotomyer were far from being 'moderates')

That's the kind of nonsense Obama fell for at the beginning of his first term. Republicans would take up a hardline position, refusing any negotiation. Obama would try to win by taking the moral high ground and offering a starting point that was already compromised. Republicans would then find themselves unable to take Obama's first position because that'd look like they won nothing, but unable to push for any more as Obama had already given them the compromised option. Cue deadlock. It's basically the mess that was the first round of deficit ceiling negotiations.

Next time around Obama didn't offer that compromise position. He made it clear if there was to be a deadlock it was all on the Republicans, who were trying to use the debt ceiling to win concessions. He just waited it out, told them if they wanted to hit the debt ceiling, then do it. It all resolved much better.

Obama has to follow a similar strategy here. If Republicans are just going to refuse to discuss candidates, then that's on them, they can own the political blowback. And given the looming spectre of Trump, I'm not sure Republicans would want to wait until there's a new president and new senate, they might lose any bargaining power over the next appointment.

So instead, Obama should nominate whoever is willing to put their hand up to get villified. Because whoever Obama nominates will be labelled as an extreme left choice, and shot down, both publically and politically. Even if it was a vat grown clone of Scalia, modified to be 15% grumpier and with 20% more bitter dissenting opinions. Political theatre demands the first candidate will be shot down. But the second candidate, provided they are to the right of the first, and Republicans have some uncertainty about November, well there's a chance they'll get over the line, if they're a good pick.

That's really the only way the appointment will happen this year. This other thing you're offering, where Obama responds to Republican extremism by offering up power just to bring them to the table, nope not happening. Not gonna work. Been there, was a disaster.

 whembly wrote:

It's got worst over the years. That's all I'm saying.

Yeah, that isn't what your initial screed indicated at all. If you had simply stated what you just did I'm sure the vast majority of people would have agreed with you.

 whembly wrote:

...we damn well better exact a price from the Democrats to pay for their own obstructionism and double standards.

We? Did you do anything for the GOP besides vote for their candidates?

And really, shut up about "double standards", one of the main hooks for conservative sites is "Here is what the liberal media doesn't want you to know!" They literally thrive on pushing the idea that there are "double standards" in media.

Donald Trump, the Anti-Patriot

Spoiler:

Donald Trump, the petulant GOP front-runner and Twitter troll, never served in uniform except when he dressed up on parade at his military academy.

You might have thought avoiding military service, even in the reserves or National Guard, while the U.S. was at war, would have instilled in Trump a more modest regard for his own courage and patriotism and a deeper respect for the sacrifice of those who did. You would be wrong. The Donald doesn’t do modesty, and his shortcomings as a patriot don’t inform his self-awareness any more than his many business failures have.

By his own admission, the closest he came to combat was his sexual adventurism in the 1980s, when HIV/AIDS was claiming the lives of better men than him. It was his “personal Vietnam,” he told shock jock Howard Stern in 1997. “I felt like a great and very brave soldier.”

While Americans with little wealth and few family connections were dodging bullets, mortars and booby traps in the jungles and rice paddies of Vietnam, our Sergeant York of well-appointed bedrooms was bravely jumping in harm’s way, armed only with the aphrodisiac of his daddy’s money.

From his brush with mortality in service to his libido he acquired the self-regard to find John McCain’s heroism wanting, and by implication the heroism of all POWs. What’s to admire about being shot down, imprisoned in solitary confinement and tortured? Losers.

The Trumpian hero never loses a thing, including his freedom. He only wins. “I like people who weren’t captured,” he explained. Including, one assumes, those who, like Trump, aren’t captured by a sense of honor or duty to their country.

His cluelessness about what a genuine love of country entails seems to have liberated Trump from other conventional scruples including a respect for the inherent dignity of human beings that is central to Judeo-Christian values.

Trump is also ignorant, it seems, about just what constitutes a war crime; what is and is not permissible in lawful warfare. Or worse, he vaguely knows and doesn’t care.

Trump’s ignorance is a distinctive kind, familiar to schoolyard bullies everywhere. It’s indifferently stupid and reflexively brutal, a dumbass cruelty exercised by people too emotionally incontinent to let reason govern passions, too selfish to develop a conscience, and too insecure to relate to others by means other than base instinct.

In the war against terrorists, he’s recommended deliberately killing their wives and children. He promises to waterboard captured prisoners and torture them even more severely though the practice of waterboarding was ended by executive action and outlawed by congressional legislation. He can’t reinstitute it without new legislation and without changes to war crime conventions.

Were he to order military and intelligence officers to employ torture, as he insists he would, they would resign rather than comply, as they would if he ordered them to take innocent lives on purpose. He would deserve to be impeached. He would belong in an international court of justice, on trial for his life, the fate met by enemies in World War II who authorized the torture of our prisoners.

Trump recently cited as an example of how to deal with captured Muslim insurgents an anecdote from America’s occupation of the Philippines in the beginning of the 20th century. Gen. John J. Pershing ordered 49 of 50 Muslim prisoners shot with bullets dipped in pig’s blood, defiling them under Islamic law, and ordered the survivor to report to his confederates what he had witnessed. After which, Trump assured his audience, “for 25 years there wasn’t a problem.”

The story is fiction. Pershing did nothing of the kind. He was a disciplined general officer, whose sense of honor remained intact through the trials of war, as did his loyalty to our country and values. See what I mean about dumbass cruelty? Trump’s never more ignorant then when he’s playing at being a tough guy.

Wars have brought out the worst as well as the best in Americans. We have struggled at great cost to uphold the values that distinguish us from our enemies. In every war, soldiers under enormous strain have committed atrocities. In some cases they had been ordered to. But those instances were aberrations, considered a national disgrace and are remembered that way. Except, I guess, by Donald Trump, the man who fought his war in the discos of New York and would have American soldiers commit atrocities as a matter of national policy.

Trump is not trying to make great America great. He’s trying to make us the worst we can be to satisfy his own vainglory. There’s no dealing with him, no trying to encourage him to behave like a grown-up, much less a statesman. If you can see him plainly and you love our country, you must vote against him. Even if that means electing Hillary Clinton.

Mark Salter is the former chief of staff to Sen. John McCain and was a senior adviser to the McCain for President campaign.

I take back what I said abut Trump. Yes, he's an idiot, and yes, I fear for Scotland should he be elected

but can you imagine 18 months down the line, Trump and Putin in the same room, and Trump yanks off his toupee and throws it at Putin

Can anybody look me in the eye and rule that out?

For the sake of comedy, we need a Trump presidency

Whembly, I remember earlier in the thread you mentioned Trump's 46% of the vote meant the theory about him having a ceiling of around 30 to 35% was proven wrong. But that ceiling is on his national vote, in individual states Trump is going to have a higher ceiling, or a lower one. And Nevada is a state where you'd expect him to do much better than elsewhere, Trump is very Vegas.

This doesn't mean I'm saying the theory about a ceiling on Trump's vote share is right. I thought it was very sound, but now I've got considerable doubts. For starters, that ceiling used to be 25%, then 30%, and now 35% maybe. And you add in that while Trump still has very high disapproval scores, those numbers have improved for him as his vote share has improved. It seems he is able to move people from hating him to being okay with him, to voting for him.

 Breotan wrote:
Let's look at modern history.

Okay. Let's look at history.

Republican Senator for Ohio George Voinovich, before Obama began his term; “If he was for it we had to be against it.”
Within a week of taking office, Obama had organised to travel to meet senior Republicans to discuss the new stimulus bill. He didn't need their votes, but he was quite naively committed to restoring bi-partisan politics, and so was offering to travel to meet Republicans on their own turf - something no president had ever done so early in their presidency. While this was happening, Eric Cantor was abandoning the 'walk back' strategy on steadily reducing the number of expected Republican votes for the bill, and had instead vowed no Republican would vote for the bill. Before even meeting with Obama.
Before Obama even took office, Mitch McConnell had demanded absolute, unified resistance against anything the Obama administration attempted. Multiple Republican congressmen have confirmed this.
Jerry Lewis, the Ranking Republican in the House Appropriations Committee, flat out told the chair ‘I’m sorry, but leadership tells us we can’t play.’ Explaining the Republican strategy, Lewis said it was because Obama had made a big promise to restore bi-partisan government, so Republicans made the decision to force Obama to break that promise by simply refusing any co-operation.

And that is from before Obama reached office, up until his first week in the job.

I don't know you from a bar of soap. I don't know if you're a Republican or one of those moderates who creates incredible mental hurdles to try and believe it's always both sides that are equally to blame. It doesn't really matter, either way the narrative you presented was 100% completely wrong. There is simply no sensible way to conclude that Obama rejected bi-partisan support. Not when we have the rejection of any bi-partisan co-operation as a Republican strategy from before Obama even took office,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Obviously, everything is pretty much kosher if your same party holds both branches.

That's in direct contrast to what you were saying when the Democrats held the presidency and a super-majority from 2008 to 2010. Back then your perception was that it was terrible for a party holding the power to do as it pleases to simply do as it pleases without engaging with the opposition.

That the Democrats weren't even doing that just pours nonsense on top of an already silly situation. But it is interesting to see you walking back from that position,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, civility in politics is fething gone. Just accept it's a bare knuckle bloodsport, and alway has been.

Thing is, Democrats are starting to wake up to that. Both at a party level, and perhaps even more so among their voting base.

All this time you've been thinking Democrats have been just as bad as Republicans. Well that's probably coming. And you're going to be in for a hell of rude shock when it happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
For the Supreme Court nomination?

He's not going to find a Scalia replacement, as he's truly one of a kind.

But, if he finds an established Textualist (note, I didn't say a Conservative), then he should nominate him and kindly ask the Senate to reconsider.

No. If you think you can reduce obstructionism by feeding compromises just to get the other side to come to the table, then you're as naive as Obama was when he started his first term.

Do you remember when Obama was talking about engaging with other countries, including rivals and enemies, and Republicans kept going on about how that was appeasement and therefore bad? It's actually quite ironic that while Obama was being hammered by very silly or very disingenuous Republicans for 'appeasing' Iran etc merely for the act of talking about talking to them, Obama was at that very time making the mistake of appeasing Republicans. Sure enough, Republicans didn't come to the table after Obama offered anything up.

And if a Republican president finds himself with an equally obstructionist Democratic party, that Republican president would be an absolute idiot for offering up something just to get the Democrats to come to the table.

Instead, the way you deal with people who refuse to talk is to simply make it clear that you and your party want to talk, make deals and move the country forward. And when the other side refuses to be part of that, see it what it does to them in the polls. And if they still don't move, watch them get churned up at the ballot. Let them turn themselves in to a permanent minority.

You don't fight bad actors with appeasement. You fight bad actors by standing your ground.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I don't think that that by itself would fix the problem either, as a number of congress critters were independently wealthy before they arrived in office, so what do they care about healthcare costs, or SS, they can retire off of a golden parachute from what they brought with them.

Efforts to restrict pay and benefits is actually likely to make the problem worse. If congresscritters are financially insecure, then they're going to be much more likely to protect special interests, either to direct bribes, or more likely to promises of lucrative lobbyist and think tank positions once their term is over.

Do you remember when Obama was talking about engaging with other countries, including rivals and enemies, and Republicans kept going on about how that was appeasement and therefore bad? It's actually quite ironic that while Obama was being hammered by very silly or very disingenuous Republicans for 'appeasing' Iran etc merely for the act of talking about talking to them, Obama was at that very time making the mistake of appeasing Republicans. Sure enough, Republicans didn't come to the table after Obama offered anything up.

Seb, your point about Iran is a fair and valid point. When I watched the Senate oversight committee on the Iran deal some months ago, it was amusing to see John Kerry slap down the Republican senators by telling them that the Obama Iran deal was more or less identical to the deal that George W Bush offered Iran!

When Kerry asked the R's senators what they would have done differently, their silence was a joy to behold. Kerry accused them of offering opposition for the sake of offering opposition, much to the delight of the other people present.

Russia, and Putin, however, is a completely different kettle of fish. I believe that Obama blundered with his strategy towards Russia, as his reset policy upset The Eastern Europeans, and made them very nervous.

Obama's red lines over Syria were embarrassing, also. When dealing with Russia, some Bismarck style realpolitik would do Obama, or any other American president, a world of good.

Dealing with Republicans on domestic issues is one thing, engaging in the great game with rival powers, many who have values completely at odds with American values, is another matter entirely.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Russia, and Putin, however, is a completely different kettle of fish. I believe that Obama blundered with his strategy towards Russia, as his reset policy upset The Eastern Europeans, and made them very nervous.

Obama's red lines over Syria were embarrassing, also. When dealing with Russia, some Bismarck style realpolitik would do Obama, or any other American president, a world of good.

Dealing with Republicans on domestic issues is one thing, engaging in the great game with rival powers, many who have values completely at odds with American values, is another matter entirely.

Oh, Obama's made plenty of mistakes, no disagreement there. Everything you said, especially Syria*, and you can also add his own involvement in Iraq - while the deal for drawdown was made under Bush, that deal was made with expectations that clearly weren't met when Obama continued the deal.

I certainly don't mean to say any criticism of Obama is wrong, far from it. I merely wanted to point out that it's foolish to think you can win over obstructionists by offering them something just for turning up to the negotiating table. That's appeasement, and as we all learnt in our highschool WWII class - appeasement just encourages them to demand more. I thought it would be funny to point that Republicans were complaining about Obama as an appeaser to other countries when he hadn't offered any country anything, but at the same time Obama was attempting to appease the Republicans.



*The focus on chemical weapons was ridiculous. We knew Assad had wiped civilian populations with artillery. And we knew thousands had been tortured and executed in government jails. All chemical weapons did was add an air of uncertainty as their use was never known, and give everyone a feeling that this was another Iraq. If Obama had planned his Syria strategy to avoid engagement he couldn't have handled it better.

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Russia, and Putin, however, is a completely different kettle of fish. I believe that Obama blundered with his strategy towards Russia, as his reset policy upset The Eastern Europeans, and made them very nervous.

Obama's red lines over Syria were embarrassing, also. When dealing with Russia, some Bismarck style realpolitik would do Obama, or any other American president, a world of good.

Dealing with Republicans on domestic issues is one thing, engaging in the great game with rival powers, many who have values completely at odds with American values, is another matter entirely.

Oh, Obama's made plenty of mistakes, no disagreement there. Everything you said, especially Syria*, and you can also add his own involvement in Iraq - while the deal for drawdown was made under Bush, that deal was made with expectations that clearly weren't met when Obama continued the deal.

I certainly don't mean to say any criticism of Obama is wrong, far from it. I merely wanted to point out that it's foolish to think you can win over obstructionists by offering them something just for turning up to the negotiating table. That's appeasement, and as we all learnt in our highschool WWII class - appeasement just encourages them to demand more. I thought it would be funny to point that Republicans were complaining about Obama as an appeaser to other countries when he hadn't offered any country anything, but at the same time Obama was attempting to appease the Republicans.



*The focus on chemical weapons was ridiculous. We knew Assad had wiped civilian populations with artillery. And we knew thousands had been tortured and executed in government jails. All chemical weapons did was add an air of uncertainty as their use was never known, and give everyone a feeling that this was another Iraq. If Obama had planned his Syria strategy to avoid engagement he couldn't have handled it better.

I read a newspaper article some time ago that said the problem with modern politicians is that they don't read eough, in particular, they don't read enough history.

Obama is a noted reader, but his choice seems to fall on fiction and crime novels.

He should have been learning lessons from books on FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, etc etc on what to do.

More stick than carrot is required from Obama.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is twitter, and this is the internet, so take it with a pinch of salt, but the latest poll from twitter has Trump beating Rubio...in Florida

So is there a Dakka bingo slot for every time Whembly is proven wrong about something?

Or is it now the free space in the middle of the card? haha

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So is there a Dakka bingo slot for every time Whembly is proven wrong about something?

Or is it now the free space in the middle of the card? haha

Nothing wrong with being wrong from time to time - we've all had a spanking on dakka, usually from the mods

In Whembley's defence, he was spot on about Hilary Clinton. Her financial arrangements should disqualify her from running a hotdog stand, never mind a global superpower.

Trump is having some spelling issues on his Facebook...

 d-usa wrote:
Trump is having some spelling issues on his Facebook...

OAKLAHOMA WERE THE WEND COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLANES!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Nothing wrong with being wrong from time to time

Yeah, but it's a bit different when you're consistently wrong, proven wrong, still hold wrong position, repeat ad nauseam, only rarely admitting wrongness but usually just changing subject and pretending prior conversation didn't exist.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Nothing wrong with being wrong from time to time

Yeah, but it's a bit different when you're consistently wrong, proven wrong, still hold wrong position, repeat ad nauseam, only rarely admitting wrongness but usually just changing subject and pretending prior conversation didn't exist.

Well, both sides do it.


/snicker

 Ouze wrote:

Well, both sides do it.


/snicker

While the pics are very amusing, they are off topic.

 Ouze wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Nothing wrong with being wrong from time to time

Yeah, but it's a bit different when you're consistently wrong, proven wrong, still hold wrong position, repeat ad nauseam, only rarely admitting wrongness but usually just changing subject and pretending prior conversation didn't exist.

Well, both sides do it.


/snicker

Ah... the old, we disagree with you so YOU.MUST.BE.WRONG!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Obama needs to actually 'consult and cooperate' with the Senate, as in *work* with the Senate on his short-list... absent that, moderate his selection. (Kegan/Sotomyer were far from being 'moderates')

That's the kind of nonsense Obama fell for at the beginning of his first term. Republicans would take up a hardline position, refusing any negotiation. Obama would try to win by taking the moral high ground and offering a starting point that was already compromised. Republicans would then find themselves unable to take Obama's first position because that'd look like they won nothing, but unable to push for any more as Obama had already given them the compromised option. Cue deadlock. It's basically the mess that was the first round of deficit ceiling negotiations.

When was that? I honestly don't ever recall in the early days of ('08-'10), that he compromised with Republicans.

And don't say the PPACA was one, as the Republicans were shut out during the crafting of that legislation.

Next time around Obama didn't offer that compromise position. He made it clear if there was to be a deadlock it was all on the Republicans, who were trying to use the debt ceiling to win concessions. He just waited it out, told them if they wanted to hit the debt ceiling, then do it. It all resolved much better.

Obama has to follow a similar strategy here. If Republicans are just going to refuse to discuss candidates, then that's on them, they can own the political blowback. And given the looming spectre of Trump, I'm not sure Republicans would want to wait until there's a new president and new senate, they might lose any bargaining power over the next appointment.

So instead, Obama should nominate whoever is willing to put their hand up to get villified. Because whoever Obama nominates will be labelled as an extreme left choice, and shot down, both publically and politically. Even if it was a vat grown clone of Scalia, modified to be 15% grumpier and with 20% more bitter dissenting opinions. Political theatre demands the first candidate will be shot down. But the second candidate, provided they are to the right of the first, and Republicans have some uncertainty about November, well there's a chance they'll get over the line, if they're a good pick.

That's really the only way the appointment will happen this year. This other thing you're offering, where Obama responds to Republican extremism by offering up power just to bring them to the table, nope not happening. Not gonna work. Been there, was a disaster.

*sigh*

See why it's only "Team-D" and "Team-R" now?

 whembly wrote:
Ah... the old, we disagree with you so YOU.MUST.BE.WRONG!

No, you're wrong because you continuously post falsehoods, over and over again, with no sense of shame. The things you have been called out on, over and over again, are not differences of opinion, they are statements of fact. You have an unbreakable pattern of doing this, being called out, and dropping it, only to repeat it or some variation thereof a few pages later.

This thread has been going on for nearly 300 pages, and at this point I think it's pretty clear the real fools are the ones who keep playing this stupid game with you, over and over again. Which includes myself, obviously.

 whembly wrote:
Secondly, the ignorance (I mean that in non-derogatory manner) of how our States Government functions is really, really high. The States don't really have a "say" in the Federal government and I think it's asinine that the Senate is directly voted by the constituents. Having the State Legislatures vote the Senators would hold these guys/gals more accountable imo. So *because* they're held accountable by the States, the level of discourse should be mitigated as well.

Have you seen state houses in action? They are rife with gerrymandering, misrepresentation, dirty politics, and corruption.

If we could fix the representation problems in state houses with the removal of FPTP/instating instant runoff, and hard anti-gerrymandering rules, then maybe, but until then I'd rather keep the power in the hands of the people, not the government.


And why is it "asinine" to have the Senate directly voted on? Surely that gives a more accurate picture of what the people want than state houses,

As previously noted, the Oklahoma Democratic Party decided to open their primaries to Independents this year.

Back in November I got a survey from the DNC that I never bothered to fill out, and today I got this:



Looks like someone is making a play for the moderates. I wonder if that is what the Oklahoma Democratic Party had in mind when they decided to let us vote

 sebster wrote:
I don't know you from a bar of soap. I don't know if you're a Republican or one of those moderates who creates incredible mental hurdles to try and believe it's always both sides that are equally to blame. It doesn't really matter, either way the narrative you presented was 100% completely wrong. There is simply no sensible way to conclude that Obama rejected bi-partisan support. Not when we have the rejection of any bi-partisan co-operation as a Republican strategy from before Obama even took office,

When I make statements that both sides engage in bad behavior in the past, they are true just as every example of compromise I presented previously also happened. But the saying 'the blame is equal' means overall and across administrations. Looking only at one administration and saying to the other guys, "you're wrong and we're not" is to ignore history. If you're willing to be honest with yourself, you'll see that whichever party does NOT hold the White House carries the lion's share of the blame during that period of time. Switch White House control and you switch which party becomes obstructionist. Of course those same obstructionists like to see themselves as the loyal opposition or some such rubbish. It is true that throughout the seven years of President Obama's term, Republicans have mostly acted as obstructionists to his agenda - for good reason if you're opposed to the Democrat Party's left-wing agenda or seemingly for pure spite if you embrace that ideology. Prior to that during President Bush's term, the Democrats were the obstructionists and the vitriol was just as ugly. The difference between us, sebster, is that I don't pretend that the Republicans are blameless victims in this situation as you seem do with President Obama and the Democrats.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Secondly, the ignorance (I mean that in non-derogatory manner) of how our States Government functions is really, really high. The States don't really have a "say" in the Federal government and I think it's asinine that the Senate is directly voted by the constituents. Having the State Legislatures vote the Senators would hold these guys/gals more accountable imo. So *because* they're held accountable by the States, the level of discourse should be mitigated as well.

Have you seen state houses in action? They are rife with gerrymandering, misrepresentation, dirty politics, and corruption.

If we could fix the representation problems in state houses with the removal of FPTP/instating instant runoff, and hard anti-gerrymandering rules, then maybe, but until then I'd rather keep the power in the hands of the people, not the government.

And why is it "asinine" to have the Senate directly voted on? Surely that gives a more accurate picture of what the people want than state houses,

I'm going to have to agree with Co'tor Shas on this. Allowing the State legislatures to control Senate representation would disenfranchise a large segment of voters who voted for the "out of power" party. In fact, the party out of power in the State Senate would never have U.S. Senate representation unless it managed to take back the State Senate in which case the other party's voters would begin losing representation in Washington, D.C.

 d-usa wrote:
Back in November I got a survey from the DNC that I never bothered to fill out, and today I got this:

Spoiler:

Looks like someone is making a play for the moderates. I wonder if that is what the Oklahoma Democratic Party had in mind when they decided to let us vote

Are you sure? I could have sworn a representative on the Cruz campaign said that Sanders was dropping out.

 sebster wrote:
Whembly, I remember earlier in the thread you mentioned Trump's 46% of the vote meant the theory about him having a ceiling of around 30 to 35% was proven wrong. But that ceiling is on his national vote, in individual states Trump is going to have a higher ceiling, or a lower one. And Nevada is a state where you'd expect him to do much better than elsewhere, Trump is very Vegas.

This doesn't mean I'm saying the theory about a ceiling on Trump's vote share is right. I thought it was very sound, but now I've got considerable doubts. For starters, that ceiling used to be 25%, then 30%, and now 35% maybe. And you add in that while Trump still has very high disapproval scores, those numbers have improved for him as his vote share has improved. It seems he is able to move people from hating him to being okay with him, to voting for him.

Yeah... that's a fair assessment.

If Trump's the nominee... then the Democrat constituents have already won.

Who you gunna vote for? A Democrat-Populist or a Democrat-EveryOneHates?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Obviously, everything is pretty much kosher if your same party holds both branches.

That's in direct contrast to what you were saying when the Democrats held the presidency and a super-majority from 2008 to 2010. Back then your perception was that it was terrible for a party holding the power to do as it pleases to simply do as it pleases without engaging with the opposition.

I meant, it's *kosher* when it's your favored party in power. I still believe it's bad ju-ju.

That the Democrats weren't even doing that just pours nonsense on top of an already silly situation. But it is interesting to see you walking back from that position,

See above, it ain't a walk back.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, civility in politics is fething gone. Just accept it's a bare knuckle bloodsport, and alway has been.

Thing is, Democrats are starting to wake up to that. Both at a party level, and perhaps even more so among their voting base.

All this time you've been thinking Democrats have been just as bad as Republicans. Well that's probably coming. And you're going to be in for a hell of rude shock when it happens.

Already here my man.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
For the Supreme Court nomination?

He's not going to find a Scalia replacement, as he's truly one of a kind.

But, if he finds an established Textualist (note, I didn't say a Conservative), then he should nominate him and kindly ask the Senate to reconsider.

No. If you think you can reduce obstructionism by feeding compromises just to get the other side to come to the table, then you're as naive as Obama was when he started his first term.

What was it he compromised in his first term?

Do you remember when Obama was talking about engaging with other countries, including rivals and enemies, and Republicans kept going on about how that was appeasement and therefore bad? It's actually quite ironic that while Obama was being hammered by very silly or very disingenuous Republicans for 'appeasing' Iran etc merely for the act of talking about talking to them, Obama was at that very time making the mistake of appeasing Republicans. Sure enough, Republicans didn't come to the table after Obama offered anything up.

What was Obama's offer? Seriously, at what point did Obama want Republicans to come to the table during the Iranian negotionation?

And if a Republican president finds himself with an equally obstructionist Democratic party, that Republican president would be an absolute idiot for offering up something just to get the Democrats to come to the table.

Why? Maybe break the cycle???

Instead, the way you deal with people who refuse to talk is to simply make it clear that you and your party want to talk, make deals and move the country forward. And when the other side refuses to be part of that, see it what it does to them in the polls. And if they still don't move, watch them get churned up at the ballot. Let them turn themselves in to a permanent minority.

You don't fight bad actors with appeasement. You fight bad actors by standing your ground.

Cap'n said it best:




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ah... the old, we disagree with you so YOU.MUST.BE.WRONG!

No, you're wrong because you continuously post falsehoods, over and over again, with no sense of shame. The things you have been called out on, over and over again, are not differences of opinion, they are statements of fact. You have an unbreakable pattern of doing this, being called out, and dropping it, only to repeat it or some variation thereof a few pages later.

This thread has been going on for nearly 300 pages, and at this point I think it's pretty clear the real fools are the ones who keep playing this stupid game with you, over and over again. Which includes myself, obviously.

Okay. Here's a challenge. Point out the next factually wrong thing I post. I'll either walk it back, or counter-challenge you on the basis of such 'facts' you posted.

We'll keep a tally... shall we?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I don't know you from a bar of soap. I don't know if you're a Republican or one of those moderates who creates incredible mental hurdles to try and believe it's always both sides that are equally to blame. It doesn't really matter, either way the narrative you presented was 100% completely wrong. There is simply no sensible way to conclude that Obama rejected bi-partisan support. Not when we have the rejection of any bi-partisan co-operation as a Republican strategy from before Obama even took office,

When I make statements that both sides engage in bad behavior in the past, they are true just as every example of compromise I presented previously also happened. But the saying the blame is equal means overall and across administrations. Looking only at one administration and saying to the other guys, "you're wrong and we're not" is to ignore history. If you're willing to be honest with yourself, you'll see that whichever party does NOT hold the White House carries the lion's share of the blame during that period of time. Switch White House control and you switch which party becomes obstructionist. Of course those same obstructionists like to see themselves as the loyal opposition or some such rubbish. It is true that throughout the seven years of President Obama's term, Republicans have mostly acted as obstructionists to his agenda - for good reason if you're opposed to the Democrat Party's left-wing agenda or seemingly for pure spite if you embrace that ideology. Prior to that during President Bush's term, the Democrats were the obstructionists and the vitriol was just as ugly. The difference between us, sebster, is that I don't pretend that the Republicans are blameless victims in this situation as you seem do with President Obama and the Democrats.

I can't exalt this enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeowsa!

Rubio/Cruz are really going after Trump on tonight's CNN debate.

Where the feth was this months ago?

Remember, Cruz was playing nice with Trump because he wanted Trump's support when Trump dropped out. Of course, Trump didn't drop out, and Cruz now has to up his game. Because if Cruz loses Texas, he's finished. And if Cruz wins Texas, but Trump or Rubio finish a close second, then Cruz is in real danger.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Remember, Cruz was playing nice with Trump because he wanted Trump's support when Trump dropped out. Of course, Trump didn't drop out, and Cruz now has to up his game. Because if Cruz loses Texas, he's finished. And if Cruz wins Texas, but Trump or Rubio finish a close second, then Cruz is in real danger.

Aye... he really needs the 50% to trigger Texas' take-all rule.

I think the problems with taking the approach of "We want to work with you, but you don't want to work with us." and letting the voters watch the obstruction are thus:

1) party hardline/dedicated voters don't care..they love it and will keep voting for the obstructioners

2) average Joe/Jane americans don't seem to give a rip for the most part because they aren't that deep into politics. The highest voter turnout in the last 50 years was nearly 70% in 1962.

Otherwise, it has barely topped 60%...and even then, the same obstructionist idiots (from both parties) keep getting re-elected.

So unfortunately, you can't tell me that the voters will ever fix this gridlock problem...at least...I din't have faith they will.

 whembly wrote:
When was that? I honestly don't ever recall in the early days of ('08-'10), that he compromised with Republicans.

That’s right. He didn’t compromise. Because Republicans decided from before Obama even took the oath that they were going to refuse any co-operation as part of a strategy to regain some kind of legitimacy. I just posted the direct quotes establishing that.

We can quibble about whether the political gains justified the means, but denying that was the Republican plan from the get go is denying history.

*sigh*

See why it's only "Team-D" and "Team-R" now?

No, you’re clearly not reading what I’m saying. This is nothing to do with yay for the blue team and boo for the red team. This is all about the political strategies taken by both teams and the best way to respond to those political strategies.

If one side decides to play hardball, you don’t defeat that by giving them stuff in the hope they’ll stop playing hardball. That will only encourage them to play harder, for longer. That should just be obvious.

Consider if Rubio won, and Democrats decided they’d be just as obstructionist. Even from a minority senate position they declare they’ll filibuster any SC nomination for four years, and then four years after that, and so on until they finally retake the presidency. Rubio would be a complete numpty to try and deal with that by offering up free stuff just to get Democrats to agree to talk about a Rubio nomination.

 Breotan wrote:
When I make statements that both sides engage in bad behavior in the past, they are true just as every example of compromise I presented previously also happened. But the saying 'the blame is equal' means overall and across administrations. Looking only at one administration and saying to the other guys, "you're wrong and we're not" is to ignore history. If you're willing to be honest with yourself, you'll see that whichever party does NOT hold the White House carries the lion's share of the blame during that period of time.

You’re moving the goalposts. You had claimed that Obama was unique in being unable to pass a law with support from the other side. I showed you that was the product of a Republican strategy they formed before Obama even took the oath. And then you started talking about how all side do it.

For what it’s worth, I agree with you that the side that doesn’t hold the presidency is always going to be the most obstructionist. That’s just how it works. It’s really a bit like pointing out the side which doesn’t have the ball is the more defensive. The point then, is how defensive you play, how much you set up to win the ball and launch counter attacks, compared to how much you just try to block opposition attacking runs.

The Republicans launched as negative a plan as you’ll ever see. And given their position in 2008, on the back of two electoral spankings, and especially given the bounce they could hope to get by being out of government in a terrible economy, there was plenty of logic in the strategy.

The difference between us, sebster, is that I don't pretend that the Republicans are blameless victims in this situation as you seem do with President Obama and the Democrats.

No, the difference is I understand the concept of extent, and actually watched close enough to know that a claim that the Democrats were as obstructionist is completely wrong. From 2006 to 2008 they certainly played a more aggressive game than previously. Probably on par with the block voting tactics of the Republicans in Bush’s first term. Not quite on par with the Republican opposition in the Clinton administration, but they were more or less playing the same sport.

But what we’ve seen in the last 8 years is nothing like any of that. This is miles beyond the normal course of affairs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
If Trump's the nominee... then the Democrat constituents have already won.

Who you gunna vote for? A Democrat-Populist or a Democrat-EveryOneHates?

I think it’s pretty contrived to call Trump a Democrat-Populist. He’s actually managed to get where he has by ramping up the popular elements of both parties. He’s taken the social support net of the Democrats and the xenophobia of the Republicans, and played it up to disaffected Republican voters. For a long time now the Republicans have tried to cover over the unpopularity of their economic positions (low taxes is an easy sell, but if you look at the programs they’d have to dismantle to fund those taxes, it gets unpopular real quick) with other kinds of populist issues, so it isn’t a huge surprise to find that a candidate who took on the populist elements of the Republican party would do well in their primary.

That it’s worked so well that it’s overcome the basic fact that Trump is horrendously gakky person is the big surprise. And that the Republican party has been so weak in shutting him out is probably the other big surprise.

I wonder if something like happened on the Democratic side, would they be so weak to challenge?

I meant, it's *kosher* when it's your favored party in power. I still believe it's bad ju-ju.

Distinction without difference.

Already here my man.

You really aren’t. There’s a scent of it in the Sanders supporters, where we can see that a reasonable number of them see any criticism, and the first response is personal attack. I wouldn’t be surprised to see that culture overtake the Democrat party, especially if Clinton wins the primary and loses the general. Then hoo boy, you’ll see something amazing.

What was it he compromised in his first term?

Read my earlier post. Obama was the first president who in his first week of office organised to meet with the opposition in their offices on capitol hill, not call them to the Whitehouse. He went there having no idea Cantor had already committed to having not one single Republican vote for the stimulus package. Obama went planning to negotiate, he had no idea Republican leadership had decided there would be no negotiation. Obama got rebuffed on everything else, up to and including ACA. He learned from there, the best way to respond to that strategy was to leave them swinging – if they wanted to refuse to take part, then you leave on the side refusing to take part.

What was Obama's offer? Seriously, at what point did Obama want Republicans to come to the table during the Iranian negotionation?

You’ve got your timeline confused. The Republican attacks about appeasement were long before the Iran deal, back when Obama was merely talking about talking to Iran and other countries. Given Republicans attacked Obama endlessly over suggesting that talks should opened, exactly how surprised should you be that they weren’t part of the actual negotiations with Iran. Obama had learned by then.

Why? Maybe break the cycle???

Because it doesn’t work. It reinforces the cycle by rewarding the bad behaviour. The way to beat obstructionism is to show the voting public that it is exactly what is happening, and then see it fail at the ballot box.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
1) party hardline/dedicated voters don't care..they love it and will keep voting for the obstructioners

Absolutely. Any Democratic plan that hoped that the Republican base would realise their obstructionism is bad and stopped would be a very bad plan.

2) average Joe/Jane americans don't seem to give a rip for the most part because they aren't that deep into politics. The highest voter turnout in the last 50 years was nearly 70% in 1962.

1962 was more than 50 years ago That’s an amazing stat though – the highest voter turnout was in a mid-term election. Things have changed.

Anyhow, if a party has policies that you really want to get passed, and the other side is blocking them, then you take that to voters at election. If you can’t draw more voters, or get a better turnout from your base, well then either those ideas aren’t actually that popular, or you aren’t selling them very well. If it’s the former, then there isn’t actually a problem, the system is working to block ideas that the public is lukewarm about at best. If it’s the latter, then there’s a problem of strategy – and most likely the problem is that you haven’t made the other side clearly responsible for blocking popular legislation.