The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[nonobaddog]

I have a problem with your ability to construct sentences without demonizing a significant portion of the citizens of this country, towit: "democraps". Not every democrat is a socialist or SJW or radical. Your coarse sieve of people who have decided that the republican party does not well represent them (an opinion held by more than a few INGO members) is a continuing insult that is largely ignored. Even if the position is widely held on INGO, most members have the courtesy to speak about the opposition in a less pejorative manner.

If one can't do this, they generally reap what they sow.

Fair enough. You are right in that I am referring to the "socialist or SJW or radical" groups when I say democraps. I am not referring to the more American Democrats that don't burn flags and don't try to turn America into a utopian socialist ****hole.

 

[Alpo]

Cool.

Peace. Out.

 

[jamil]

I was referring to the unprecedented obstruction of the United States Congress by the democraps during the last year and a half.

Well. Dems were a bit louder. And I’d say their loudness and unhingedness is unprecedented. But in terms of obstructing, how many times did they shut the government down? Hell, my man Ted Cruz shut it down just for fun. Read bedtime stories to his daughter from the floor of the US Senate! What democrat has mated that. Republicans, thankfully, obstructed a lot of lefty bull****. Being pleased with what Republicans were able to obstruct and then complain when the other side does it...there’s a word for that. I cannot be intellectually consistent condemning obstruction only when the other side does it while thinking it’s freat when my side does it.

However, there is a very consistent thing to condemn in democrats behavior that is unprecedented. They’re unhinged. Obstructing the other side’s agenda which is opposed to theirs is their job. They’d be doing a disservice to their constituents if they just rolled over and gave Republicans everything they wanted. But it is morally reprehensible to call for violence against the other party. Their behavior is rightly condemnable as unethical and immoral.

So call out their immoral behavior and even their tactics in obstructing opposing agendas. Republicans never made **** up against a SCOTUS nominee to obstruct by any means necessary. Obstruction of opposing agendas is fine. Doing it by any means necessary is just thuggery. That does not belong in a free society.

 

[jamil]

Foolishly idealistic, I know - but should that last thing really matter if you are deciding what's good for the country? Maybe the wall wasn't their favorite solution, well then come up with a better one. Dithering and sitting on your hands worrying about a place at the trough should be considered [strike]shameful[/strike] [strike]McCainism[/strike] being part of the problem

BTW accept your criticism on characterizing your position. Mea culpa

Not many people think it’s all that necessary. From their perspective, why take a pollitical hit for fulfilling a President’s campaign promise? If he wants it, maybe he should start a gofundme.

 

[jamil]

Trump needs to go out of his way to provoke the dems for the next 2 years. Shouldnt be to hard. Make them as crazy as possible. Force them into drawing lines in the sand and cross them and either force them to back down or go forward with things each time. Overwhealm them. The American people need to see how crazy the Democrats really are and that their only interest is in inflicting payback for 2016. Force them to impeach him. They're gonna do it anyway so let's see how many impeachment hearings we can get them to have and keep that front and center for 2 years

Well, hold on. People can tell when the dems are unhinged. People can tell when you’re trolling them into being unhinged. We cauld tell when Obama was just trolling Republicans. I think dems have so many unforced errors because they’re ideologues and just can’t help themselves, just feed them rope as they take up the slack. When it reaches the end, they’ll hang themselves. Hell. Fox should invite Casio-Cortez on and just let her keep talking. The more she says publically the more the moderates cringe.

 

[jamil]

I think Trump's criticism was valid, though. If Sessions had decided that he would recuse himself, he should have informed Trump. The President-elect had the right to appoint someone who could actually exercise all the powers and responsibilities of the position, not damaged goods

So, assuming Trump has this grievance as a reason for firing him. Logically you wait until now to fire him? See, this is why people think Trump is mentally unstable.

 

[nonobaddog]

Well. Dems were a bit louder. And I’d say their loudness and unhingedness is unprecedented. But in terms of obstructing, how many times did they shut the government down? Hell, my man Ted Cruz shut it down just for fun. Read bedtime stories to his daughter from the floor of the US Senate! What democrat has mated that. Republicans, thankfully, obstructed a lot of lefty bull****. Being pleased with what Republicans were able to obstruct and then complain when the other side does it...there’s a word for that. I cannot be intellectually consistent condemning obstruction only when the other side does it while thinking it’s freat when my side does it.

However, there is a very consistent thing to condemn in democrats behavior that is unprecedented. They’re unhinged. Obstructing the other side’s agenda which is opposed to theirs is their job. They’d be doing a disservice to their constituents if they just rolled over and gave Republicans everything they wanted. But it is morally reprehensible to call for violence against the other party. Their behavior is rightly condemnable as unethical and immoral.

So call out their immoral behavior and even their tactics in obstructing opposing agendas. Republicans never made **** up against a SCOTUS nominee to obstruct by any means necessary. Obstruction of opposing agendas is fine. Doing it by any means necessary is just thuggery. That does not belong in a free society.

Yes the dems were loud and unhinged but I am talking about obstruction. Actually it sounds like you are not aware of the extent of the obstruction going on.

Shutting down the government really takes both sides to fail to come to agreement. Failure to cooperate.can be caused by many things, especially in politics.

But on obstruction, filibusters are a form of obstruction but they are relatively short and significant filibusters are relatively rare now. Cruz's filibuster in 2013 is one of the longest in history at about 21 hours.

The current dem form of obstruction is using cloture votes. Originally meant as a way to limit filibusters, this 100 year old rule has the undesirable side effect of calling for about 30 hours of debate on an issue and can be forced by a small number of senators, currently 16 I think. I don't think when this rule was put in place they considered any congress person would ever sink so low as to use this as a weapon against the United States Government.

The dems are using this obstruction method liberally. If you look at the first terms only (when most appointments are made) of the previous four presidents cloture was used a total of 32 times to debate controversial nominees. In the first year and a half of President Trump's Presidency this has been used 110 times (almost certainly more by now) to obstruct the government. Even when the nominee is uncontroversial they have to spend the time for this debate. Frequently the debate is idle chatter or the floor is simply silent but the time still has to be wasted. This is an attack on America.

Congress meets about 138 days a year (average from 2001 through 2016) and meets for an average of 5.92 hours per day. So if the 110 times this was used (so far) resulted in 30 hours each that represents 330 hours or 55.7 days or about 5 months of wasted time just for the debate portion of this one method of obstruction.

Also the dems are using roll-call voting as an obstruction weapon in unprecedented manner. It takes time to herd those senators into their places and call each name and record their vote as opposed to a much quicker voice vote. There have been a ridiculous number of roll-call votes forced purely to obstruct the government.

There is much more but it is too complicated to address properly in a forum post. Do a search on government obstruction and you will find the current level is unprecedented to the point of being treasonous.

 

[T.Lex]

Do a search on government obstruction and you will find the current level is unprecedented to the point of being treasonous.

It really isn't. Unless there's an incredibly low hurdle for "treasonous."

Those procedural devices have always been used. For the 14A discussion, reading back the minutes of Congressional debate back then reminds us that these things have always been used and will always be used.

Now, there has been some evolution. Perhaps most notably in the POTUS use of recess appointments, and then the reaction of not adjourning long enough to be considered a "recess."

 

[nonobaddog]

The American people should be made aware of what is going on but the left run media is so quiet about it. We will have to wait until the liberals are in power and see if the Republicans sink low enough to use some of the same obstructionist tactics (they will almost have to now). Then the media will really turn up the volume and tell us how terrible this is.

 

[mmpsteve]

Congress meets about 138 days a year (average from 2001 through 2016) and meets for an average of 5.92 hours per day. So if the 110 times this was used (so far) resulted in 30 hours each that represents 330 hours or 55.7 days or about 5 months of wasted time just for the debate portion of this one method of obstruction.

Your point is well made, but you need to check your math. 110 x 30 is bigger than 330 hours.


.

 

[nonobaddog]

Your point is well made, but you need to check your math. 110 x 30 is bigger than 330 hours.


.

Yes, very poor math. Bottom line is they are willing to obstruct years of government legislation time.

Trump has made fewer nominations than most recent presidents and with this obstruction of course many fewer have been approved. There are openings in ambassadors, executive positions and judicial positions that are not being filled. All of America is suffering at the hands of "the party".

 

[T.Lex]

Yes, very poor math. Bottom line is they are willing to obstruct years of government legislation time.

Trump has made fewer nominations than most recent presidents and with this obstruction of course many fewer have been approved. There are openings in ambassadors, executive positions and judicial positions that are not being filled. All of America is suffering at the hands of "the party".

Do you have a link for the proposition that Trump has made "fewer nominations" than most recent presidents?

Regardless, Republicans used the same tactics to slow-walk first term Obama appointees, too. I do not know the numbers, but it was the same tactic.

In fact, in my experience, those procedural delays are often used at every legislative level, regardless of party affiliation. You use the tools you have, especially when in the minority. Basically, it is one of the only sources of leverage you can get.

 

[Fargo]

Do you have a link for the proposition that Trump has made "fewer nominations" than most recent presidents?

Regardless, Republicans used the same tactics to slow-walk first term Obama appointees, too. I do not know the numbers, but it was the same tactic.

In fact, in my experience, those procedural delays are often used at every legislative level, regardless of party affiliation. You use the tools you have, especially when in the minority. Basically, it is one of the only sources of leverage you can get.

Trump has been able to fast track noms because of the nuclear option the Dems played a few years ago. The proceedural delays he has faced are nothing compared to those of the past. I too would be fascinated to see a link, as I'm pretty sure the opposite is true.

 

[BugI02]

Do you have a link for the proposition that Trump has made "fewer nominations" than most recent presidents?

Regardless, Republicans used the same tactics to slow-walk first term Obama appointees, too. I do not know the numbers, but it was the same tactic.

In fact, in my experience, those procedural delays are often used at every legislative level, regardless of party affiliation. You use the tools you have, especially when in the minority. Basically, it is one of the only sources of leverage you can get.

But ... but ... when someone points out that a progressive/Democrat has done the exact same thing that a Trumper or more generic conservative does or wishes to do, we are told we are better than that and can't/shouldn't use that as justification

Is this another one of those non-commutative, unidirectional 'standards' of behavior?

 

[nonobaddog]

Obummer nominees faced 17 cloture votes - and frankly some of his appointees were quite controversial to many so some of the debate was very warrated.
Trump nominees have faced 110 cloture votes as of May 2018 and counting - it isn't even close.

You obviously didn't look up any facts or you would find out this is the worst obstruction in history.

 

[nonobaddog]

But ... but ... when someone points out that a progressive/Democrat has done the exact same thing that a Trumper or more generic conservative does or wishes to do, we are told we are better than that and can't/shouldn't use that as justification

Is this another one of those non-commutative, unidirectional 'standards' of behavior?

It isn't the exact same thing at all - the obstruction is out of control. Please look it up.

 

[nonobaddog]

Trump has been able to fast track noms because of the nuclear option the Dems played a few years ago. The proceedural delays he has faced are nothing compared to those of the past. I too would be fascinated to see a link, as I'm pretty sure the opposite is true.

I wonder how you could be pretty sure - you didn't look up anything.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Obummer nominees faced 17 cloture votes - and frankly some of his appointees were quite controversial to many so some of the debate was very warrated.
Trump nominees have faced 110 cloture votes as of May 2018 and counting - it isn't even close.

You obviously didn't look up any facts or you would find out this is the worst obstruction in history.

In 2013 alone Obama's nominees were subject to 150 cloture votes. So not quite the worst in history. And yes I looked it up.
Trump nominees have already faced many cloture votes

 

[nonobaddog]

Do you have a link for the proposition that Trump has made "fewer nominations" than most recent presidents?

You probably trust CNN
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/trump-nominations/

 

[nonobaddog]

In 2013 alone Obama's nominees were subject to 150 cloture votes. So not quite the worst in history. And yes I looked it up.
Trump nominees have already faced many cloture votes

Obummer nominees only faced 17 cloture votes in his entire first term.

It is not fair to include any second term because Trump has not had his second term YET.