Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

GOP offers 1 month continuing resolution and 6 years CHIP funding

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, mugtang said:

Our government is being held hostage by those on the far right and far left.  Those in the middle are afraid to compromise because the fringes are so vocal.  It’s pathetic. 

I know, but those in the middle should outnumber these wackos and get them in line to get something done.  Why should some far right or far left state rep get to hold up stuff that is this important?  It's maddening to me.  

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mugtang said:

Our government is being held hostage by those on the far right and far left.  Those in the middle are afraid to compromise because the fringes are so vocal.  It’s pathetic. 

If there were more than a few Democrats who would work independently with Republicans, then a lot more would get done.  The Dems take their marching orders from their party leadership and their big donors.  They have not shown me they are working on behalf of most their voters.  Over half Democrat voters do not want a gov't shutdown, and they do want to make a DACA deal.  Only about 1/3 or less of Dems don't want any deals or anything done.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

Is it? I don't remember any compromise offered on Obamacare for example. If you have examples I'd love to see them. I'm not saying you're wrong because I honestly don't remember a time when the dems had full control that they offered any compromises.

Do you remember  the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office? Including secret meetings led by House whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.” Hence they became known as the "party of no".

Early on in the process, Obama was begging Republicans to help with the health care bill. Apparently, the health care bill they were interested in was no bill at all. As we were often reminded of: how many Republican's voted for the ACA? In the long run, that worked out very well for the GOP, why shouldn't the Dems employ a similar strategy? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

Is it? I don't remember any compromise offered on Obamacare for example. If you have examples I'd love to see them. I'm not saying you're wrong because I honestly don't remember a time when the dems had full control that they offered any compromises.

Also, one this ^^^point. The Repubs are in full control now why the phuck to they need the Dems for anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

I know, but those in the middle should outnumber these wackos and get them in line to get something done.  Why should some far right or far left state rep get to hold up stuff that is this important?  It's maddening to me.  

No shit. But we both know it's because all of those reps at the extremes are in rock solid safe seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  @halfmanhalfbronco and @pokerider   Do you two really have that bad of memories or is just selective memory?  Just do a google search.  Remember the 13 day shutdown by Cruz to force defunding of Obamacare?  Do you remember the Grand Bargain that Obama was trying to make with Boehner that the tea party killed?  Do you remember all the reaching out that Obama did early on the ACA.  Do you remember Turtle saying his goal was to make Obama a one term president?  Talk about brainwashed.   Democrats are just using their leverage and they haven't even shut down the government!  

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pokerider said:

If there were more than a few Democrats who would work independently with Republicans, then a lot more would get done.  The Dems take their marching orders from their party leadership and their big donors.  They have not shown me they are working on behalf of most their voters.  Over half Democrat voters do not want a gov't shutdown, and they do want to make a DACA deal.  Only about 1/3 or less of Dems don't want any deals or anything done.   

But dammit poke, couldn't the same be said if a few Republicans would have worked independently with Obama?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, renoskier said:

No shit. But we both know it's because all of those reps at the extremes are in rock solid safe seats.

I just detest extremism in any form.  I think of it like a bell curve, with most of us falling in the middle of htat, and just wanting what is best for everyone.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, renoskier said:

But dammit poke, couldn't the same be said if a few Republicans would have worked independently with Obama?

Yes

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Also, one this ^^^point. The Repubs are in full control now why the phuck to they need the Dems for anything?

Because the Repubs are a clusterphuck of ego's and differing priorities and many of them really hate each other and the Freedom Caucus is aids?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Do you remember  the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office? Including secret meetings led by House whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.” Hence they became known as the "party of no".

Early on in the process, Obama was begging Republicans to help with the health care bill. Apparently, the health care bill they were interested in was no bill at all. As we were often reminded of: how many Republican's voted for the ACA? In the long run, that worked out very well for the GOP, why shouldn't the Dems employ a similar strategy? 

Well, because the ACA is a disaster. It didn't reduce cost and reduced choices for millions. Just like the GOP said it would. 

Do you not remember Obama saying elections have consequences? Or the ACA meeting where Obama told McCain he won so they were doing it his way? Contrast that with an open meeting on tv where Trump had both sides in a room and was looking for compromise. I think there is a clear difference in the first year of the two admins on who wants to deal and who didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, renoskier said:

But dammit poke, couldn't the same be said if a few Republicans would have worked independently with Obama?

Remember the Republican Hastert Rule?  Don't vote on something unless a majority of the majority approves.  How do you think the Freedom Caucus and Tea Party got so much power?

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jack Bauer said:

I just detest extremism in any form.  I think of it like a bell curve, with most of us falling in the middle of htat, and just wanting what is best for everyone.

That's the issue. People on each side have drastically different ideas on what they believe is best for everyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rebelbacker said:

Well, because the ACA is a disaster. It didn't reduce cost and reduced choices for millions. Just like the GOP said it would. 

Do you not remember Obama saying elections have consequences? Or the ACA meeting where Obama told McCain he won so they were doing it his way? Contrast that with an open meeting on tv where Trump had both sides in a room and was looking for compromise. I think there is a clear difference in the first year of the two admins on who wants to deal and who didn't.

His made for TV "performance" was obviously ineffective because Durbin and Graham brought him a bill just like he said and he went all alt-right and rejected what he said he would accept the day before.  There is nobody there to make a deal with. 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Also, one this ^^^point. The Repubs are in full control now why the phuck to they need the Dems for anything?

The dems are normally in lockstep and fall into line on what the party wants. The GOP has factions and is too hard line on some issues to their detriment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Akkula said:

His made for TV "performance" was obviously ineffective because Durbin and Graham brought him a bill just like he said and he went all alt-right and rejected what he said he would accept the day before.  There is nobody there to make a deal with. 

Trump wanted a consensus not a bill brought by Durbin and Graham with no input from other players that didn't address all the issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

Trump wanted a consensus not a bill brought by Durbin and Graham with no input from other players that didn't address all the issues. 

Notice that Trump always punts when it comes to deciding on the substance of any law.  He does this so he can play both sides of the fence and so he can point the finger.  "The buck stops...over there."  What a leader....

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Akkula said:

Notice that Trump always punts when it comes to deciding on the substance of any law.  He does this so he can play both sides of the fence and so he can point the finger.  "The buck stops...over there."  What a leader....

Well, the tax bill disagrees with you. So does his reversing numerous policies and rolling back regulations across all of government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

I've read a lot about this subject. We've put a lot of time and money into layered missle defense for just this reason. It's one of the reasons I was in favor of the arsenal ship concept that ultimately wasn't approved. In the open ocean I am not as concerned about it. If we fought a conflict say in the Taiwan Strait? Yeah, we'd lose a few carriers for sure IMO. 

The main Chinese threat is the DF-21 missle. The Navy's thinking is by extending the range of our airpower we can limit the ability of normal ship killing missles to reach a Task Force. Since the DF-21 is ballistic that is of great concern. The question is if they work? 

Even if they work the vast majority of the time we face catastrophic losses. Carriers cost many billions and take years to build. We only have 10 so losing a few would be crippling.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...