President Donald Trump

[Hornsby]

Unfortunately, this is largely about “wins” and “losses,” in fact, that’s all it’s ever about these days. Schumer and Pelosi won’t cave because that’s a win for Trump. Trump will probably cave but that’s a win for the Dems. It’s not about progress and the good of country, it’s about getting voters to be on the side of the “winners.”

I think that this is partially true, but it's also about holding out until the new Congress is installed, and the Dems control the house. Then they can somewhat dictate what is going to become law, and what won't. So don't look for any progress until after the 1st, because the Dems have no reason to cave to Trump right now.

So yes, it's about "wins" and "losses", but that's what politics have always been about. That hasn't changed since the days of the Romans, and it never really will...

[DMT]

Thanks for confirming something that has been my contention for almost a decade now. The game of politics and governance has changed - it is no longer about finding compromise but rather winning at all cost including mutually assured destruction. It is sad that the idea of bi-partisanship appears to have gone the way of the phoenix.

And who are the two people most responsible? Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell.

[Bernie Brewer]

I think that this is partially true, but it's also about holding out until the new Congress is installed, and the Dems control the house. Then they can somewhat dictate what is going to become law, and what won't. So don't look for any progress until after the 1st, because the Dems have no reason to cave to Trump right now.

So yes, it's about "wins" and "losses", but that's what politics have always been about. That hasn't changed since the days of the Romans, and it never really will...

While I agree in concept with what you say, it’s gotten worse in the past 20 years. And, even more so in the past 10 years.

I don’t agree with your comment, which I’ll admit I may be misinterpreting, about the Dems holding out until the new congress installed, because Dems can somewhat dictate what is going to become law. The Dems only control the House, and while they can play the oft hated obstructionists, which in keeps things from becoming a law, but they won’t pass any meaningful laws themselves. Certainly not without support from the GOP controlled Senate and Trump.

[Bernie Brewer]

And who are the two people most responsible? Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell.

I think you might be letting your liberal lean show, of those are the only two you name. You forgot Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Chuckie the Shum.

[baldgriff]

And who are the two people most responsible? Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell.

Personally - I dont care who you believe is responsible. BOTH parties have been playing the mutually assured destruction game for way to long and it does not benefit the country. How long have we been bouncing the hot potato on pot? The Federal Government should have been acting on this for almost a decade now. Certainly you would agree that when this many individual states have laws legalizing a Schedule 1 Drug there should be some movement. This one should be a slam dunk for bi-partisan approval - not sure it will ever happen at the Federal level at this point.

[heyelander]

Thanks for confirming something that has been my contention for almost a decade now. The game of politics and governance has changed - it is no longer about finding compromise but rather winning at all cost including mutually assured destruction. It is sad that the idea of bi-partisanship appears to have gone the way of the phoenix.

Of course our voting mentality has changed also. Where we once voted based on concerns and platform issues - all to many people are more worried about voting for the winner.

do you really think anyone is voting based on who they think will win? "I'm a dyed in the wool liberal, but history says that most incumbent presidents are re-elected, so I'm voting for trump" or, "I really like everything the president has done, but his favorable ratings are in the tank, I guess I'll voted for the democrat just to make sure I'm on the winning side of things..." You think there's a large portion of the population that is voting like this!?!

[baldgriff]

do you really think anyone is voting based on who they think will win? "I'm a dyed in the wool liberal, but history says that most incumbent presidents are re-elected, so I'm voting for trump" or, "I really like everything the president has done, but his favorable ratings are in the tank, I guess I'll voted for the democrat just to make sure I'm on the winning side of things..." You think there's a large portion of the population that is voting like this!?!

I actually do think that there is a large segment of the voting population that are lazy and vote in an attempt to pick the winner - picking who is more popular - rather than actually thinking about the impact of that vote. I believe more people would vote for who they think will win, rather than even consider a 3rd option that may actually more align with their personal ideals. They would rather vote and try to pick the winner, than "waste" their vote.

But hey, its just my opinion - I dont have any statistical data to prove it.

Edit to add: I also believe that this plays into why we have some people who have been lifelong politicians. Once they become the incumbent - they generally will be given the benefit of the doubt and people will vote for them, because the incumbent typically gets re-elected.

[heyelander]

Ah.. I think there's a difference between voting for who you think will win and who you think has the better chance of winning.

If i agree with 80% of what dem thinks and they have a 45% chance of winning
I agree with 15% of what repub thinks and they have a 54% chance of winning
And I agree with 95% of what Indy thinks but they have a 1% chance of winning, I'll go with the EV and vote dem.

Maybe that's self fulfilling, but it's the math right now

[Hornsby]

While I agree in concept with what you say, it’s gotten worse in the past 20 years. And, even more so in the past 10 years.

I don’t agree with your comment, which I’ll admit I may be misinterpreting, about the Dems holding out until the new congress installed, because Dems can somewhat dictate what is going to become law. The Dems only control the House, and while they can play the oft hated obstructionists, which in keeps things from becoming a law, but they won’t pass any meaningful laws themselves. Certainly not without support from the GOP controlled Senate and Trump.

The House has a Big Hammer, the power of the purse. They essentially control spending by the Federal Government.

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

And congress, especially the House, has what is sometimes referred to as the "Power of the Purse", the ability to tax and spend the public's money. So yeah, I do believe that the Dems are going to hold out until they have the control of the purse...can't see anything changing that.

[heyelander]

I also think you are arguing two conflicting arguments here...

You want more third party candidates, but you want more compromise and leadership. The thirdish party groups that have come out in the last few elections (Either the Tea Party of the Dem Socialists) have been more strident and less likely to compromise and push their respective parties further from the middle. The hypothetical 15 point difference between my Indy choice and Dem choice in the other post is probably the 15% of beliefs that unless we are willing to compromise is going to shut everything down. I'll vote for the Dem in hopes that we can get 50% of the 80% that I stand for rather than 5% of the 95% I stand for.

[baldgriff]

I also think you are arguing two conflicting arguments here...

You want more third party candidates, but you want more compromise and leadership. The thirdish party groups that have come out in the last few elections (Either the Tea Party of the Dem Socialists) have been more strident and less likely to compromise and push their respective parties further from the middle. The hypothetical 15 point difference between my Indy choice and Dem choice in the other post is probably the 15% of beliefs that unless we are willing to compromise is going to shut everything down. I'll vote for the Dem in hopes that we can get 50% of the 80% that I stand for rather than 5% of the 95% I stand for.

The Tea party and the Dem Socialists are part of the existing Rep and Dem party. They are not parties unto themselves. These two groups tend to be further from the Right or the Left of their respective parties and I agree will attempt to push the party further in the direction that they prefer rather than looking to be more centrist. However, they are still considered part of the overall party and not an actual party that I can vote for separate of the major party that they are aligned with.

I actually have considered some Green Party stances, but I have found that the Libertarian party most aligns with my thoughts regarding overall government. I dont agree with them on all things, but its closer than either of the two major parties and I wish there were more Libertarian candidates for me to support.

[Bernie Brewer]

do you really think anyone is voting based on who they think will win? "I'm a dyed in the wool liberal, but history says that most incumbent presidents are re-elected, so I'm voting for trump" or, "I really like everything the president has done, but his favorable ratings are in the tank, I guess I'll voted for the democrat just to make sure I'm on the winning side of things..." You think there's a large portion of the population that is voting like this!?!

If you're asking me, I'd say no, but... Both parties are playing the masses this way. But I do think there are lots of low information voters that vote the way they are told to by the associations of which they are members, whether a union or NRA, or their Pastors/Religious leaders.

[Bernie Brewer]

The House has a Big Hammer, the power of the purse. They essentially control spending by the Federal Government.



And congress, especially the House, has what is sometimes referred to as the "Power of the Purse", the ability to tax and spend the public's money. So yeah, I do believe that the Dems are going to hold out until they have the control of the purse...can't see anything changing that.

Sadly, that doesn't bode well for the children in DC. This will lead to temper tantrums from both parties and further Government Shutdowns, etc.

[onejayhawk]

The House has a Big Hammer, the power of the purse. They essentially control spending by the Federal Government. And congress, especially the House, has what is sometimes referred to as the "Power of the Purse", the ability to tax and spend the public's money. So yeah, I do believe that the Dems are going to hold out until they have the control of the purse...can't see anything changing that.

That worked so well for the Republicans during the Obama years. What is predictable is lower spending but the White House will get credit, see 1995-2000, 2011-2016.

J

[revo]

So another easily fact-checked lie by our stable genius:


"During his first visit to a combat zone since assuming office nearly two years ago, President Donald Trump couldn’t help but take personal credit for a very generous and fictional pay raise for U.S. troops.

The president told service members at al-Asad air base in Iraq that he was proud to secure them a much-needed pay bump of “more than 10 percent” after years of stagnant wages. Many of the troops in attendance may have also been surprised to learn they hadn’t seen a pay increase in more than a decade.

“Is anybody here willing to give up the big pay raise you just got?” Trump said, asking for a show of hands. “You haven’t gotten one in more than 10 years. More than 10 years. And we got you a big one. I got you a big one. I got you a big one.”

In fact, military members have seen a pay raise in each of the last 10 years, ranging from 1 percent to 3.9 percent, according to the Defense Department. They even saw pay bumps when other federal workers were subjected to a three-year pay freeze in the wake of the Great Recession.

The pay increase for 2019 passed by Congress and signed by the president in August will be 2.6 percent, the largest since 2010. It is not far above last year’s raise for troops, which was 2.4 percent.

“We had plenty of people that came up. They said, ‘You know, we can make it smaller. We can make it 3 percent. We can make it 2 percent. We can make it 4 percent.’ I said, ‘No. Make it 10 percent. Make it more than 10 percent.’”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-brags-troops-fictional-giant-040407952.html

I mean, WTF? It's a double whopper -- they've gotten pay raises every year, and the raise was nowhere near 10% as he claimed. Is he delusional? Is he just clueless? Does he think he can gaslight anyone and they'll believe him? Did anyone in the audience have any idea what he was talking about? Does anyone brief this bozo?