Donald Trump's Presidency (Continued)

[valade16]

there has never been the same type of attacks on Obama from the media as we have seen from the media towards Trump.

it's laughable to compare people in America thinking Obama wasn't born in America, to people thinking Trump is going to take actions similar to HITLER. nice try though.


Mika/Joe/Morning Joe constantly attack Trump, and then when he defends himself they (and many others) get all offended. so what do they do next? ..they continue to attack Trump.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...h-little-hands

the entitlement from the left and the media is outstanding.
you know Trump is going to defend himself from being bullied, yet people make the decision to continue attacking/bullying.
get a clue and stop attacking Trump personally or get better at taking him defending himself.

The only thing laughable is your stunning ignorance on even basic recent political history. I'm guessing you're about 16 years old (am I right?).

Here is a nice little summation of all the numerous times Obama was called Hitler by Conservative pundits/writers/etc.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...es_of_the.html

Yes, many conservatives accused Obama of being the next Hitler. Yes you are wrong. That makes what? 6 straight things you've been wrong about. At some point I'd figure you'd actually get tired of having your *** handed to you

[ManRam]

There are two problems with this.

1). That isn't even remotely close to happening. The Healthcare bill has like 17% support in polls. It's the closest we've come to the exact opposite of a perfect bill. If it enjoyed widespread support he may have a point.

2). A perfect bill for Republicans is likely a vastly different bill than a perfect one for Democrats. His administration has not attempted to have any facet of Democratic thought or principle in any of his bills or decisions so how could he expect they'd ever think it was a perfect bill? A bi-partisan bill would be the truly perfect bill.

Moreover, Trump has not once shown that he understands any of the nuance that these health care bills involve. If anything, he's admitted that it's far more complicated than he ever imagined. I think it's no coincidence that he hasn't help a presser or an interview in forever. I truly don't think he can speak eloquently on this matter. I'd love to see the Trump supporters here post the most articulate and best quote he's made on any of these bills (House, Senate, whatever).

I don't agree that a bi-partisan bill is the best one. But hey, I'm just a wacky lefty. If Obama wasn't popular and the ACA also wasn't as popular as ever, I'd prefer the Dems promote Obamacare as a conservative bill (it's what they wanted in the 90s, it is the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation, etc.) and truly push for single payer. Unfortunately that ain't happening, even as we just got two Senators this week to say it. Just look at California: super majority and still sabotaged by a few powerful Dems.

[dbroncos78087]

The only thing laughable is your stunning ignorance on even basic recent political history. I'm guessing you're about 16 years old (am I right?).

Here is a nice little summation of all the numerous times Obama was called Hitler by Conservative pundits/writers/etc.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...es_of_the.html

Yes, many conservatives accused Obama of being the next Hitler. Yes you are wrong. That makes what? 6 straight things you've been wrong about. At some point I'd figure you'd actually get tired of having your *** handed to you

Man I still get haunted a little bit by the intro for Hannity's show back when Obama got elected and inaugurated.

[rrzubnyy]

But as I said, these comfirmable nominations do not require a single Democrat to approve. 52-48 is how the balance of power sits and all those positions require only 50 votes. So there is literally nothing the Democrats can do to stop the appointments. Can't blame a party that doesn't have enough votes to do anything.

The problem is the Dems complain about everything but never bring anything to the table....

They are only concerned with the 2018 elections and to stall Trump so two more Supreme Court judges do not come from Trump...The Dems are more scared about the Supreme Court than anything else that comes from the Trump agenda...

And the Dems are so hypercritical with everything.....It is a party that is crumbling and yet Pelosi still stays on board...

How many seats have the Dems lost since 2010?

[dbroncos78087]

And the GOP wouldn't be doing the exact same thing had Clinton won? What's the point? I don't see what that proves. Does that change the math that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is NOTHING the Democrats could do to stop Trump's appointees? Trump could appoint anyone even Purim and the Democrats couldn't stop him from doing so.

Pelosi isn't responsible for seat loses. She was a statistically significant effective Speaker. She actually carried water through the House unlike her successors. Boehner and Ryan have done nothing compared to what Nancy did. The GOP rode a strong wave in 2010 that was buoyed by tea party movement and have been slowly losing seats back since. The Democrats are weak in the state government since they tend to live in concentrated areas and states. That isn't likely to change and thus the balance of power is likely to stay the same on the state level.

[dbroncos78087]

Simply amazing. Obama is still acting like president. He's golfing with the Indonesian president and probably saying "look ignore this guy, we all make mistakes but they tend to correct themselves".

[ManRam]

The problem is the Dems complain about everything but never bring anything to the table....

They are only concerned with the 2018 elections and to stall Trump so two more Supreme Court judges do not come from Trump...The Dems are more scared about the Supreme Court than anything else that comes from the Trump agenda...

And the Dems are so hypercritical with everything.....It is a party that is crumbling and yet Pelosi still stays on board...

How many seats have the Dems lost since 2010?

I do agree that the Democrats have become prolific losers. Even when Obama was popular and his policies were popular, they were still holding serve or ultimately losing. The Dems current brand sucks. It's not Pelosi herself, I wish it were that simple. She isn't the reason Dems are currently losing. It's a much bigger and more important problem. I think there are some elements outside of just brand (gerrymandering, voter restriction, etc.) but the fact that they fight so feebly against that is their own undoing too.

The rest is mostly rubbish.

Chaffetz was so upset that he couldn't continue his career as chief Clinton Complainer that he quit. It's absurd to suggest the right would bend the knee at all if Hillary had won. Let's not forget that Trump won on a campaign promising to lock up his political opponent Unprecedented ****. They would've fought like hell, like they had for years before the election even happened, to undermine Hillary at ever chance they got. The second HRC lost they gave it ALL up. Why? It was just politics. And they're good at that type of politics. They would've obstructed Hillary far more than the Dems can obstruct Trump, because they're better at it.

Of course they're worried about 2018 and of course they're worried about the Supreme Court. You have absolutely zero right to talk about anything pertaining to ethics involved with handling Supreme Court nominees.

The party is at a crossroads and they need to figure out how to do better. I'm incredibly critical of them and want drastic change. But you don't get to play the moral high ground in terms of the chivalry involved in politicking. The fact that the Right is so willing to go to drastic (and "nuclear") levels is a huge reason why they're more successful than Dems. They'll shut down governments to get what they want. They'll ruthlessly gerrymander. They'll attack voter rights. They'll abstain from voting for Supreme Court Justices. They'll do anything...and that's why they're where they are now. It's well past time the Dems actually fight to get their agenda done. All this talk about bipartisan governance and compromise...all I've seen in my life is the Dems ceding compromise to the Republicans. Compromise has always meant going a bit to the right. This narrative of Dems being ruthless politicians is just so stupid. I wish it weren't. But in the end, our Democratic leaders don't actually care enough about true progressive policy to ever win. Most of them have the same interests ($$$$$) as their Republican counterparts. Social progress is inevitable, but even there it takes Dems SOOOOO long to get on board.

The Right found a lot of success out of the Tea Party. I fear the Democrats are too stupid to realize that where success lies is with the more left/radical faction of their party.

[valade16]

The problem is the Dems complain about everything but never bring anything to the table....

They are only concerned with the 2018 elections and to stall Trump so two more Supreme Court judges do not come from Trump...The Dems are more scared about the Supreme Court than anything else that comes from the Trump agenda...

And the Dems are so hypercritical with everything.....It is a party that is crumbling and yet Pelosi still stays on board...

How many seats have the Dems lost since 2010?

The Dems insistence on backing unpopular politicians simply because they've done a lot for the party is irritating. If the constituents don't want them quit trying to shove them down our throats. The

[dbroncos78087]

Saying that Pelosi is to blame is nonsensical. Would they stop attacking whoever the Democratic leader was if Pelosi were to step down? Suddenly all those "Pelosi liberals" would all of a sudden be treated as "reasoned disagreement"? No one is dense enough to believe that is the case. Right? If all of a sudden Collin Peterson (apparently he is the House member who votes most often against the Democrats) were to become the Democratic leader, then all Democrats in tight races would be pegged as "Peterson liberals". The facts would be irrelevant. The exact same way that when Boehner stepped down and Ryan was made Speaker, they didn't stop bashing Republicans as "XXX conservatives". The name they used was the only thing that changed.

[ManRam]

Saying that Pelosi is to blame is nonsensical. Would they stop attacking whoever the Democratic leader was if Pelosi were to step down? Suddenly all those "Pelosi liberals" would all of a sudden be treated as "reasoned disagreement"? No one is dense enough to believe that is the case. Right? If all of a sudden Collin Peterson (apparently he is the House member who votes most often against the Democrats) were to become the Democratic leader, then all Democrats in tight races would be pegged as "Peterson liberals". The facts would be irrelevant. The exact same way that when Boehner stepped down and Ryan was made Speaker, they didn't stop bashing Republicans as "XXX conservatives". The name they used was the only thing that changed.

Exactly.

I don't care for Pelosi one bit, but it doesn't matter. Even if it were someone I vehemently liked, they'd just label him/her as a crazy commie fascist socialist or something and it would pick up steam and become an effective campaign tool. The Right does such a better job of crafting narratives for these establishment liberals than they do at crafting their own narratives. Trump is a bit toxic (should be way more toxic, which if anything proves my point), but even incompetent boobs like Paul Ryan aren't as toxic as "Pelosi" is. You can try to deride a candidate in a purple state/district by slapping "PAUL RYAN REPUBLICAN" on the candidate and it won't do much. It's something else that the right is better than the left at. They just pound these narratives home into submission.

I would like to see Pelosi go but it's not because Right wing donors funneled millions of dollars into a congressional race in Georgia to paint Ossoff as a "Pelosi Democrat" and capitalized on their own branding of her name, it's because we just need something new, fresh and different. We need (I believe) someone a lot less centrist and a lot less establishment.

[ManRam]

How many seats have the Dems lost since 2010?

Dems had 257 seats after the 2008 elections. Rs had 178. They fell to 193 in 2010 (242 for the Rs) and not much has changed since then (241 seats for the Rs after 2016). I think we'll see a similar shift in 2018 because of Trump's unpopularity and because it just tends to always happen, but it will be tough because during that time voter suppression and gerrymandering has really made things more difficult.

But yes, they lost a ton of seats during the first midterms of Obama's administration (common to see that)...and haven't bounced back, regardless of anything Obama did or didn't do. Whatever they've been doing since 2008 has not been working all too wonderfully. Which makes the people who just want to keep chugging along and pretend like 2016 was just some fluke due to things entirely out of the party or candidate's control all the sillier.

[dbroncos78087]

I hear what you are saying but when you say less establishment, I hear less productive. I know that's not what you mean but look at Trump. He is not establishment and people like him will never be doers. Rand Paul and his father were less establishment in a similar way and collectively didn't pass a kidney stone. Nancy was incredibly successful and while I don't have the numbers in front of me, I would argue one of the most productive Speakers in history.

[dbroncos78087]

Also fun fact: Trump and his team might be in more legal hot water. Federal and NY state anti-coercion laws are no joke. Did they try to blackmail Mika and Joe? Sure seems that way and I don't know exactly what charges he and they might face.

[ManRam]

I hear what you are saying but when you say less establishment, I hear less productive. I know that's not what you mean but look at Trump. He is not establishment and people like him will never be doers. Rand Paul and his father were less establishment in a similar way and collectively didn't pass a kidney stone. Nancy was incredibly successful and while I don't have the numbers in front of me, I would argue one of the most productive Speakers in history.

Establishment has become a vapid word. Basically, I just don't think the Democratic brand (outside of Obama's presence and words, and a few bits of truly good legislation) has at all been successful for well over a decade now. I think the status quo is not good enough. In fact, I think it's bad. I want people who aren't like what we've had for a while now. Like, I've made it clear that I'm very pro primarying anyone and anything. **** it. What's to lose? We've been losing for long enough. We just lost to the most embarrassing thing ever. How can anyone pretend that we shouldn't look for big wholesale changes in strategy and policy? People hate truly conservative policy. The alternative the Democratic party has put forth hasn't been good enough, and I just see a lot of easy ways it can be a hell of a lot better.

I don't know if I am equipped at this moment to argue over productivity of Speakers, but she probably did do a lot. And some of what was passed was truly good legislation. But look where we are now? It ain't great. The message we're selling isn't resonating. The platform is stagnant and unappealing. I just think we need to really rethink things and really shake things up for the better. She's not losing elections for people, but is she really helping out? She's uninspiring. She represents, fair or not, a lot of what people don't like. People HATE congress. Like HATE HATE HATE congress. She's as much as that collectiveness as anyone else.

[Ezekial]

Just repeal Obamacare and replace it later, it's not like people rely on it right now anyway.