Sorta reminds you of Ronald Reagan, doesn't it?
Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
They are protecting it. DUH....The founders didn't say the constitution was set it stone. They built it so it could be changed....via a process called amendments.
The difference here is these conservatives believe in actually following the law and using the amendment process when they want to change the constitution....not just ignore it and sign executive orders making end runs around the law as Obama has or imagine it says things it does not the way so many liberal judges have.
yes another master con artist... but then these republicans are easily duped by someone promising this and that.... and as long as they get what they want fuck the rest of the country
just trying to remember if there was ever a time if there wasn't greed and corruption in the RNC
Kind of funny... here 2 guys running for sheriff.. SHERIFF!... someone had them both o a local news station... the republican had claimed that the Dem was receiving contributions from a convicted felon.... newscaster put him on the spot and he couldn't document nor prove nor give any names of anything... so he agreed to "change" the ad... not retract or eliminate ... just change
but that's the way they are and have been for how many years... way back.. to Andrew Jackson!
wait a minute that's not what you all said about the second amendment... seems it can be changed when it suits you and not if it's something you don't like
all of our laws are some one's opinion and ruling... that's why there are so many law books... they keep track of how one ruling was and try to follow it..
got to give HH some credit he is hanging in there with his tea party BS.... most of the others have said ... they are not republican... won't say what they are just not admitting to being republican... of course I don't blame them... it is an embarrassing party right now... the people pick one for a nominee and they don't like him and are plotting ways to undermine the will of the people... typical of the republicans to not follow what the people want.... like the ACA for one!
you will really like this one Mac
Republicans continue to turn to the wrong economist
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) yesterday tweeted a picture of him sitting down with a familiar figure in his leadership office. The far-right Louisianan wrote, “Great to meet with President Reagan’s former economic advisor Art Laffer to discuss the benefits of tax reform!” Soon after, The Hill reported that Laffer publicly defended Donald Trump’s trade policies. “Having spent time with him and virtually all of the other candidates, I would say that he has as firm a grasp of international trade as any candidate,” Laffer said a breakfast at The Podesta Group. “He clearly understands foreign investments, foreign locations, foreign businesses.
Republicans continue to turn to the wrong economist
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) yesterday tweeted a picture of him sitting down with a familiar figure in his leadership office. The far-right Louisianan wrote, “Great to meet with President Reagan’s former economic advisor Art Laffer to discuss the benefits of tax reform!” Soon after, The Hill reported that Laffer publicly defended Donald Trump’s trade policies. “Having spent time with him and virtually all of the other candidates, I would say that he has as firm a grasp of international trade as any candidate,” Laffer said a breakfast at The Podesta Group. “He clearly understands foreign investments, foreign locations, foreign businesses.
there is a reason his name is Laughfer.... sorry laffer
• What Republicans' Obstruction Costs Them
For more than 20 years, Republican politicians have followed one overarching strategy: pursuing maximum opposition to the president when they don't control the White House.
While liberals may hate this obstruction, they agree with conservatives that it is successful and makes sense from a Republican point of view. Jonathan Chait describes it this way:
The link between the design failures of the presidential system itself and these failures is clear enough. The worse things go for the president, the better the chances for the opposition party to regain power. Cooperating would merely give the president bipartisan cover, making him more popular and benefiting his party as well. Republican leaders have openly acknowledged these incentives. In the Obama era, this has ****** the Republican leadership to mount a scorched-earth opposition, demonizing the president as an alien socialist who threatens America’s way of life.
This Republican belief that compromise always helps the White House, at least when it comes to electoral politics, goes back further than the Obama years. It started in ******* with Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and the Republican reaction to Bill Clinton's election in 1993, and what they did in the year that followed was a model for how Republicans acted in 2009. The GOP's midterm victories in 1994, 2010 and 2014 seemed to validate it.
The problem is that we now know more about the supposed success of the never-compromise strategy. Bill Clinton was re-elected in 1996, and wound up, perhaps in part because of the Republican decision to impeach him, as a more popular president over his eight years than Ronald Reagan was in the course of his two terms. Barack Obama was re-elected as well, and while he hasn’t been a particularly popular president, he’s currently a bit more popular than Reagan was in 1988. And people strongly dislike the Republican Party.
It’s possible the GOP's rejectionist strategy helped in the three midterm elections, but it’s far more likely those results just reflected the normal ebb and flow of elections. The president’s party usually does badly in midterms.
And, to be fair, first-term presidents usually get re-elected. I don’t think the Republican strategy in particular made Clinton or Obama more popular. For that matter, I don't see much evidence that it changed anything in either direction.
It isn't hard to find countervailing examples. President George H.W. Bush lost his re-election bid in 1992 despite having plenty of “bipartisan cover” for the 1990 bipartisan budget deal and Democratic support for his foreign-policy actions. His biggest domestic success, the Americans With Disabilities Act, also had bipartisan support. But none of that seemed to matter one way or another when the economy slumped.
Of course, no one expects an out-of-power party to go along with what its opponent in the White House proposes. At times, very strong opposition is normal.
But normal opposition includes at least the possibility, and sometimes the reality, of cutting deals giving both sides something. And it has never in the past precluded a certain amount of government business getting done. Normal opposition hasn’t produced extended government shutdowns or debt-limit crises.
It isn't just that extreme obstruction is bad for the nation. It's bad for Republican-aligned groups, too. By shunning compromise, Republicans fail to use the leverage they have to win policy victories for those groups. They also, by demanding total victory and then having to accept total defeat, encourage unrealistic expectations among their constituents.
One result is that some Republicans even believe there has been too much cooperation with the Obama administration. If only the government had been shut down longer in 2013; if only Republicans had refused to accept the budget deals they have agreed to; if only they had blocked every single judicial and executive branch appointment. Then, these Republicans reason, they would have won more individual battles, and Obama’s popularity would have really tanked.
That Republican faction may well use this as an excuse if Hillary Clinton is elected. In that event, everyone expects more of the same: House and Senate Republicans will do whatever they can to oppose whatever she proposes, on big and small issues, even if a compromise might be available and in both parties' interests.
But what if that strategy is based on a wrong assumption about how U.S. politics works? Then Republicans are accepting all the costs of obstruction for mostly (or even entirely) fictional benefits.
1. Chait’s item is an excellent response to a fascinating article in the Atlantic by Jonathan Rauch. Rauch attributes much of what’s wrong with U.S. politics to a plague of good-government purism, which has stripped the gears that allow the Madisonian machinery to work. Chait says, no, the problem is the Republican Party. They’re both right: Rauch’s general argument is good, but Chait is correct about the specifics.
2. Yes, there have been exceptions, even during Obama’s presidency (such as Senate approval of an arms-reduction treaty with Russia, and cooperation on some trade deals).
3. Two examples: Republicans have defeated (by filibuster if needed) routine “technical corrections” bills to clean up language in legislation such as the Affordable Care Act. And Republicans have routinely filibustered against (or, under Republican majorities, simply refused to consider) the confirmation of district court judges, even when Obama’s nominees are not controversial at all.
For more than 20 years, Republican politicians have followed one overarching strategy: pursuing maximum opposition to the president when they don't control the White House.
While liberals may hate this obstruction, they agree with conservatives that it is successful and makes sense from a Republican point of view. Jonathan Chait describes it this way:
The link between the design failures of the presidential system itself and these failures is clear enough. The worse things go for the president, the better the chances for the opposition party to regain power. Cooperating would merely give the president bipartisan cover, making him more popular and benefiting his party as well. Republican leaders have openly acknowledged these incentives. In the Obama era, this has ****** the Republican leadership to mount a scorched-earth opposition, demonizing the president as an alien socialist who threatens America’s way of life.
This Republican belief that compromise always helps the White House, at least when it comes to electoral politics, goes back further than the Obama years. It started in ******* with Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and the Republican reaction to Bill Clinton's election in 1993, and what they did in the year that followed was a model for how Republicans acted in 2009. The GOP's midterm victories in 1994, 2010 and 2014 seemed to validate it.
The problem is that we now know more about the supposed success of the never-compromise strategy. Bill Clinton was re-elected in 1996, and wound up, perhaps in part because of the Republican decision to impeach him, as a more popular president over his eight years than Ronald Reagan was in the course of his two terms. Barack Obama was re-elected as well, and while he hasn’t been a particularly popular president, he’s currently a bit more popular than Reagan was in 1988. And people strongly dislike the Republican Party.
It’s possible the GOP's rejectionist strategy helped in the three midterm elections, but it’s far more likely those results just reflected the normal ebb and flow of elections. The president’s party usually does badly in midterms.
And, to be fair, first-term presidents usually get re-elected. I don’t think the Republican strategy in particular made Clinton or Obama more popular. For that matter, I don't see much evidence that it changed anything in either direction.
It isn't hard to find countervailing examples. President George H.W. Bush lost his re-election bid in 1992 despite having plenty of “bipartisan cover” for the 1990 bipartisan budget deal and Democratic support for his foreign-policy actions. His biggest domestic success, the Americans With Disabilities Act, also had bipartisan support. But none of that seemed to matter one way or another when the economy slumped.
Of course, no one expects an out-of-power party to go along with what its opponent in the White House proposes. At times, very strong opposition is normal.
But normal opposition includes at least the possibility, and sometimes the reality, of cutting deals giving both sides something. And it has never in the past precluded a certain amount of government business getting done. Normal opposition hasn’t produced extended government shutdowns or debt-limit crises.
It isn't just that extreme obstruction is bad for the nation. It's bad for Republican-aligned groups, too. By shunning compromise, Republicans fail to use the leverage they have to win policy victories for those groups. They also, by demanding total victory and then having to accept total defeat, encourage unrealistic expectations among their constituents.
One result is that some Republicans even believe there has been too much cooperation with the Obama administration. If only the government had been shut down longer in 2013; if only Republicans had refused to accept the budget deals they have agreed to; if only they had blocked every single judicial and executive branch appointment. Then, these Republicans reason, they would have won more individual battles, and Obama’s popularity would have really tanked.
That Republican faction may well use this as an excuse if Hillary Clinton is elected. In that event, everyone expects more of the same: House and Senate Republicans will do whatever they can to oppose whatever she proposes, on big and small issues, even if a compromise might be available and in both parties' interests.
But what if that strategy is based on a wrong assumption about how U.S. politics works? Then Republicans are accepting all the costs of obstruction for mostly (or even entirely) fictional benefits.
1. Chait’s item is an excellent response to a fascinating article in the Atlantic by Jonathan Rauch. Rauch attributes much of what’s wrong with U.S. politics to a plague of good-government purism, which has stripped the gears that allow the Madisonian machinery to work. Chait says, no, the problem is the Republican Party. They’re both right: Rauch’s general argument is good, but Chait is correct about the specifics.
2. Yes, there have been exceptions, even during Obama’s presidency (such as Senate approval of an arms-reduction treaty with Russia, and cooperation on some trade deals).
3. Two examples: Republicans have defeated (by filibuster if needed) routine “technical corrections” bills to clean up language in legislation such as the Affordable Care Act. And Republicans have routinely filibustered against (or, under Republican majorities, simply refused to consider) the confirmation of district court judges, even when Obama’s nominees are not controversial at all.
I would like to see the records of which you speak.
It is interesting that you define a presidents success by his popularity. Clinton was far from an economic genius. He happened to be in office at the time that Greenspan's tinkering temporarily made the economy expand at a nice rate. And like any good politician he took credit for something that he had little or nothing to do with. The economy is not healthy and the primary reason for that is all the new regulations that the Obama administration has spawned. Typically recessions last about 3 years from crash to recovery there hasn't been a real recovery since President Obama has taken office. Nearly all of the "Obama recovery" is just smoke and mirrors.
well lets look at Reagan..... there used to be billboards up all over the country... when he was cutting your taxes for you... and the billboard would click every second showing the deficit!.... and lets look at GW when he came in things were in good shape.... but what was the deficit when he left.... hell the interest alone is enough to break us without some serious push to get it under control... and with no help from the obstructionist... it's hard to do on your own... you guys just never could clean up your own mess!
oh I see... naturally Bill had nothing to do with it... it was all greenspan... I know your logic.... and Gw putting us in the hole wasn't really gw... it was all those wars that did it gw had nothing to do with it
I realize for a republicn it is hard to see what you want to see so I guess maybe it does look like smoke
The shunning compromise is hardly one sided. In the current Gun Control debate the Republicans put forward a good piece of legislation that would have protected the public without infringing on the Bill Of Rights. The Democrats refused to consider it. The plan the Democrats are pursuing if passed would render the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution meaningless.
Ok exactly what did Clinton do to bolster the economy? Do you even understand what Greenspan did after the 1987 crash?
I wouldn't say the President is an alien but he most definitely follows a socialist agenda. He has clearly stated that he feels the U.S. Constitution is seriously flawed and has taken numerous actions challenging the separation of power
You really need to look at all the numbers. People are abandoning both parties at an alarming rate. Unless there is a significant turnaround by one or both parties a third party candidate has a real opportunity to win the White House
If Hillary is elected it would be interesting to see how much the Clinton fortune increases during and after her tenure
The thing that I find amazing is that with all their resources neither party has a viable economic plan to save the economy.
