ChrisWeigant.com

Too Little From Congress, Too Much From Trump

[ Posted Wednesday, February 15th, 2017 – 17:54 PST ]

The relative speed differential between the Trump White House and the Republican Congress is already starting to cause problems, it seems. Because the Trump administration is moving so quickly and Congress historically moves at a pretty glacial pace, the unspoken bargain between congressional Republicans and President Trump is already showing cracks. The basic deal was going to be that GOP leaders in Congress would back Trump up on some of his (shall we say) more esoteric campaign promises, while Trump's end of the bargain would be to sign pretty much anything Republicans could manage to get past Congress, even if it contradicted some of what Trump promised his supporters (like gutting Medicare and Medicaid, to cite the most obvious candidate). GOP leaders would allow Trump to build his wall in exchange for Trump allowing them to shred the safety net and bestow generous tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy. That was the plan, at any rate.

The problem Republicans in Congress are now facing is twofold. The first complication is a story which hasn't gotten nearly the media attention it deserves -- Republicans in Congress seem downright incapable of even deciding among themselves how to implement their agenda. The Tea Party hardliners (especially in the House) are, as is their wont, pushing for absolute fealty to their unrealistic ideals. They're not in the mood to back down one tiny inch from any of their extreme goals -- just like they've always been. It has been roughly seven years since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed. Seven years! Not once in that entire time have the Republicans in either chamber of Congress even sent a bill to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the first step any serious legislation has to take. No floor votes have been held on any sort of replacement for Obamacare in the House or in the Senate. Zero votes. In seven years. This is because Republicans cannot agree among themselves what to do if their fantasy of waving a magic wand and making Obamacare disappear ever did come true. And Obamacare is merely the most obvious example to cite -- just wait for the infighting to come when the budget bills are being written.

Congressional Republicans' own dysfunction slows down a process that was already pretty snail-like to begin with. Even in normal times, when Congress is actually functional, bills take a long time to pass. With GOP infighting at every step of the process, it's going to take even longer. Which brings up the second problem -- the blinding speed of the Trump White House. It has not even been a full month since Donald Trump was sworn into office. To put this another way, there are a whopping 47 more months to go. Yet in this abbreviated time, we've already seen a slew of presidential actions issued at a breathtaking pace. Granted, many (if not most) of these are nowhere near as impactful as Trump likes to think (executive orders can only do certain things, and are meaningless for other subjects). Even so, the speed at which they pour forth has been relentless. This means while Congress is working slower and slower, the Trump White House seems to be flooring the gas pedal, leaping forward at breakneck speed. To state the obvious: these two trends are working against each other, at least when seen through the eyes of Republican leadership on Capitol Hill.

The net result of all this is that the unspoken bargain may at some point become impossible to sustain. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell really wanted to hustle a whole bunch of the standard Republican agenda through Congress and present it to Trump for his signature. This would have the benefit of proving the GOP can indeed govern, and it would provide much red meat to the traditional Republican base. Congressional Republicans could point to all their achievements and talk about them, rather than answer more questions about what Trump just tweeted.

The problem for Ryan and McConnell (and the rest of them) is that absent large legislative packages placed on Trump's desk, there's really nothing to talk about (to journalists or to their own constituents), other than what Trump has been doing. With the White House gushing executive actions like a firehose, there simply is no letup. Now that the steady stream of stories out of the Oval Office has turned rather sour, Republicans are having not only to defend Trump's odd priorities, but also the increasing amount of White House scandals.

In the past day or so alone, a letter from the ethics office strongly recommended that Kellyanne Conway be disciplined for hawking Ivanka's products in a televised interview, the House oversight chair asked for details on the "room situation" that happened down at Trump's golf resort (where a national security meeting took place in full view of diners lacking any sort of security clearances, after North Korea timed a missile launch to happen during the dinner), and an increasing number of Republicans (mostly in the Senate) are now calling for a full investigation of the scandal which forced out Michael Flynn -- as well as all the rest of the shady ties to Russia from the Trump campaign and Trump administration. That all happened in one day. And, once again, we're not even four weeks in yet.

It wasn't supposed to be like this. Republicans in Congress were supposed to allow some of Trump's foibles to go unchallenged (so he could score some political points with the people who elected him), while Trump was supposed to return the favor by not challenging the full rollout of the GOP agenda in all its shining glory. But the relative speed of both efforts is increasingly noticeable, now that the whole grand bargain seems about to fly apart in a paroxysm of chaos. GOP leaders signed up for looking the other way on inane things like a Muslim ban and a border wall, but they hadn't counted on joining in a coverup on national intelligence scandals involving Russian interference with high-ranking Trump officials. That wasn't supposed to be part of the bargain, in other words.

A new political bombshell was dropped today which may or may not get the attention it deserves. So far, Trump has gotten all his appointments through the Senate (although Betsy DeVos was as close as it could get), because Republican senators have been voting in lockstep for almost all the Trump nominees. But today the nominee to head the Department of Labor had to withdraw his bid. Reports are that anywhere from seven to twelve Republican senators had indicated they weren't ready to vote for him, and it only takes three to derail a nomination.

This is an important development, because it is the first time the Republicans in Congress have effectively stood up to Trump. It remains to be seen how he'll react, but it's a real possibility that he'll lash out at Republican senators in response. This may further sour the relations between Trump and the people he needs to get anything of note accomplished during his presidency. Trump wants to show the world how quickly he can institute change in Washington, and so far he's set a frenetic pace. Even before the scandals started piling up, it was getting hard for congressional Republicans to keep up. Add to this the slowdown caused by their own caucus not being able to agree on much of anything, and you get Trump going full speed ahead while the GOP Congress has thrown on the emergency brakes. The upshot is the media and the political world has nothing to talk about except what spews from the White House on a daily basis. Since that stream has turned polluted -- with multiplying levels of scandal -- this has put congressional Republicans in an ever-deepening defensive crouch.

Progressives have been holding their breath since Trump took office, hoping that the wheels would come off his political bus before too much damage had been done. This was once an almost-dogmatic belief among Democrats -- that Trump would surely fail. However, this belief was shaken to the core when Trump actually got elected (which wasn't supposed to happen, according to the same belief). Less than a month in, however, it's looking more and more certain to come true -- and probably sooner than later. With antagonism building between congressional Republicans and Trump, it is now looking like the biggest fights over the next year or so aren't going to come from Democrats, but rather be an orgy of Republican-on-Republican squabbling. After all, it's been less than a month and already Donald Trump is racking up not only policy failures (the Muslim ban) and personnel failures, but also national security scandals and Trump nominees getting rejected by the Senate. Things are pretty bad and getting worse for Trump, politically. Who knows how bad things will get in another month's time?

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

162 Comments on “Too Little From Congress, Too Much From Trump”

  1. [1] 
    MHorton wrote:

    I find that part in the EO about agency communications being quieted that said they can't communicate with Congress without permission from the White House is giving a sign, and Senators saw it.

    I've always thought that 45's victory would actually make the GOP's schisms bigger; the pressure to actually govern is going to put all the factions in positions to oppose eachother.

    With 45 in office, his base is going to be impossible for the Establishment GOP to control without pandering to 45, but that's political suicide of a different flavor for quite a few issues.

    What's the old curse? May you get everything you wish for?

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How bad does it have to get?

    An effort has begun to stop the president from starting a nuclear war. Legislation has been proposed that would end the sole authority of President Trump or any of his successors to launch nuclear weapons.

    You can read all about it here and sign the petition to Congress to act on this very critical issue:
    http://www.ploughshares.org/issues-analysis/article/tell-congress-stop-trump-starting-nuclear-war

  3. [3] 
    MHorton wrote:

    There's another move being made to limit his ability to ease sanctions on Russia without Congressional approval.

    It seems like this Flynn fiasco showed a few Senators where their spines were.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Congressional Republicans' grand bargain with Trump was fantasy thinking on their part. The rude awakening has begun ...

  5. [5] 
    MHorton wrote:

    Graham tried to warn them.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What are the forces that might prevent Congress from taking legislative action to curtail the authority of the president?

    And, if they act to do that, then what is next?

    Do you see this presidency surviving its first term?

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The orange Russian puppet's power will not be questioned. He got more electoral college votes than anyone in the known universe. Gaslight!

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you want to put some serious quatloos on that, JFC?

  9. [9] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Poor QVC Conway. Nobody in the fake media likes her lies anymore. She should play the vagina card.

  10. [10] 
    MHorton wrote:

    The main thing preventing Congress from moving against 45 is Republican fear of his response, because 45 may very well come at them with a scorched Earth policy.

    Institutionally, nothing stops them; the agencies would prefer Congress to 45 (crazy!) so there wouldn't likely be much pushback from the rank and file workers who execute such policies.

    This administration will make it exactly as long as 45's pride keeps him from resigning. Because there's no way he's having fun, and he's never had a real job in his life.

  11. [11] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM [8],

    Ideally, we should gamble on future events. The EC has already voted and Fuhrer Drumpf won a terrific landslide. Historic.

  12. [12] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    “Every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump. It’s everyone who’s ever doubted Donald, who ever disagreed, who ever challenged him. It is the ultimate revenge to become the most powerful man in the universe." - reality TV celebrity Omarosa Manigault, director of communications for the Office of Public Liaison in the Trump White House

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    The problem for Ryan and McConnell (and the rest of them) is that absent large legislative packages placed on Trump's desk, there's really nothing to talk about (to journalists or to their own constituents)

    Spot on. And now they have to go home and face their constituents, and instead of a bunch of gun nuts claiming that the Kaiser is trying to steal their string, they are facing people who want to know about he future of their healthcare and if Putin is running the White House.

  14. [14] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @Neil I don't see Utah in particular becoming any friendlier unless they turn on 45.

    The red-leaning purple states are going to be the where we see the most movement.

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    The Tea Party hardliners (especially in the House) are, as is their wont, pushing for absolute fealty to their unrealistic ideals. They're not in the mood to back down one tiny inch from any of their extreme goals -- just like they've always been.

    Heh Doesn't THAT sound familiar :D

    To put this another way, there are a whopping 47 more months to go.

    You KNOW it's going to be another 95 months, right?? :D

    This is an important development, because it is the first time the Republicans in Congress have effectively stood up to Trump.

    Sounds like yer cheering for the Republicans.. :D

    Less than a month in, however, it's looking more and more certain to come true -- and probably sooner than later.

    Oh puuulleeeessseeee :D

    Trump's first month was a blissful cakewalk compared to FORMER President Obama's first month..

    Let's try to obtain a little perspective, eh? :D

    Things are pretty bad and getting worse for Trump, politically. Who knows how bad things will get in another month's time?

    Ya know?? You could take this statement and project it back in time to ANY TIME before Nov in 2016 and it would be identical to everything that was being said..

    When will ya'all learn?? Ya'all continually underestimate President Trump and his appeal to patriotic Americans... :D

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    Horton,

    I find that part in the EO about agency communications being quieted that said they can't communicate with Congress without permission from the White House is giving a sign, and Senators saw it.

    Which part would that be??? Can you post it??

    I've always thought that 45's victory would actually make the GOP's schisms bigger; the pressure to actually govern is going to put all the factions in positions to oppose eachother.

    That is actually happening.. But it's happening to the Democrat Party... :D

    With 45 in office, his base is going to be impossible for the Establishment GOP to control without pandering to 45, but that's political suicide of a different flavor for quite a few issues.

    Exactly...

    Which is why President Trump is going to be so great for patriotic Americans... Because he is not beholden to the GOP...

    His only boss is the American people.. :D And, judging from his job approval number rise, it's looking like the American people are behind President Trump 1000%.. :D

    What's the old curse? May you get everything you wish for?

    In THIS case, for patriotic Americans, it's a blessing, not a curse. :D

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    An effort has begun to stop the president from starting a nuclear war.

    Oh come on... I think we had discarded such ridiculous fear-mongering..

    It's been proven beyond ANY doubt that no one single person, not even the POTUS, can launch a nuclear strike..

    It is simply not in the realm of possibility...

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    There's another move being made to limit his ability to ease sanctions on Russia without Congressional approval.

    Cite??

    And what's your opinion on that?? Do you think it's a good thing that Congress tries to box in the POTUS???

    The only reason I ask is that the entirety of the Left Wingery, including everyone here, castigated and denigrated Congress when they tried to box in FORMER President Obama..

    So, I am curious if NOW ya'all think it's a GOOD thing that Congress is boxing in the POTUS...

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Congressional Republicans' grand bargain with Trump was fantasy thinking on their part. The rude awakening has begun ...

    Yep.. :D And I couldn't be happier than a pig in a poke..

    Seeing the GOP squirm and twist in the wind is seeing the Democrats squirm and twist in the wind.. :D

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    Horton,

    Graham tried to warn them.

    Again.. Cite???

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    KFC,

    Poor QVC Conway. Nobody in the fake media likes her lies anymore. She should play the vagina card.

    Yea, cuz it worked so well for NOT-45, eh? :D heh

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    Horton,

    The main thing preventing Congress from moving against 45 is Republican fear of his response, because 45 may very well come at them with a scorched Earth policy.

    Yep... Which is why patriotic Americans LOVE President Trump... :D

    Institutionally, nothing stops them; the agencies would prefer Congress to 45 (crazy!)

    Once again, I have to ask you for a cite...

    This administration will make it exactly as long as 45's pride keeps him from resigning. Because there's no way he's having fun, and he's never had a real job in his life.

    Now I have to call BS on this one..

    Never had a job?? Com'on.. I think you are letting your ideological blinders get in the way of your common sense...

    President Trump can be accused of many many things, but not having a real job is definitely NOT one of them.. :D

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    Horton,

    I don't see Utah in particular becoming any friendlier unless they turn on 45.

    The red-leaning purple states are going to be the where we see the most movement.

    You mean like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin where President Trump won handily??? :D

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    Woops.. Kinda got ahead of myself..

    Seeing the GOP squirm and twist in the wind is seeing the Democrats squirm and twist in the wind.. :D

    That should read:

    Seeing the GOP squirm and twist in the wind is ALMOST as much fun as seeing the Democrats squirm and twist in the wind.. :D

    My bust :D

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    President Trump can be accused of many many things, but not having a real job is definitely NOT one of them.. :D

    I guess it would depend on what constitutes a "real job"..

    I mean, for the Left Wingery a "community organizer" is a "real job"....

    :^/

  26. [26] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well it has been a few weeks now since the last CEO got some free publicity by pretending that their pre-planned investment in a plant in America was an off-the-cuff decision after an amazing deal meeting with 45.

    Of course the increase in unemployment from 4.7% to 4.8% probably ensured that 45 lost interest in being "the greatest president for jobs that God ever created".

    Maybe the problem is that he can't even fill his own positions.

    Senate Republican leaders asserted this week that -- based on numbers provided by the Partnership for Public Service, Plum Book, and Congress.gov -- Trump has the fewest Cabinet secretaries confirmed at this point in the presidency of any incoming president since George Washington.
    Fox News, Feb 8th, 2017

    And this is the high level, most visible positions. Tillerson is running around with a skeleton staff - and not through choice. Word is he was hoping Harrison Ford would fly his plane to Germany.

    This is what you get when you reverse up the clown car to 1600 Penn.

    All I require from 45 voters is an apology and a promise never to do something this stupid to us again.

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    Of course the increase in unemployment from 4.7% to 4.8% probably ensured that 45 lost interest in being "the greatest president for jobs that God ever created".

    That just shows that more Americans are back in the job market....

    That's a GOOD thing...

    All I require from 45 voters is an apology and a promise never to do something this stupid to us again.

    And all I require from NOT-45 voters is a concession that their candidate was flawed and stoopid, lost to someone like President Trump and would have been a disaster for this country..

    Wanna lay bets NEITHER of us will get what we require?? :D hehehe

  28. [28] 
    neilm wrote:

    45 fanboys who kept telling us that they wanted a "real businessman" in the White House who could get things done have to explain why their orange idol can't even do the simple bits of the job.

    Take the posts that require Senate confirmation. There are 696 key positions that require senate confirmation. So far 661 have not even had a nominee put forward, of the rest only 12 have been confirmed and 23 are in the confirmation process.

    Of the 53 people required for the Department of Defense only 1 has been confirmed (Mad Dog) and another 3 are waiting confirmation. There is nobody even identified for the other 49 open jobs. And this is one of 45's better displays of competence. There are open ambassadors all over the World. Nobody is running the Department of the Interior for example.

    And now we have to restart the search for National Security Advisor.

    For more details and a lot of blank lines where there should be names:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-administration-appointee-tracker/database/

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    Mind you, maybe we know now where the uptick in unemployment came from :)

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    And now we have to restart the search for National Security Advisor.

    He's already been selected. Rear Admiral Hayward...

    Of the 53 people required for the Department of Defense only 1 has been confirmed (Mad Dog) and another 3 are waiting confirmation.

    That's because your Democrats are slow-walking everything..

    45 fanboys who kept telling us that they wanted a "real businessman" in the White House who could get things done have to explain why their orange idol can't even do the simple bits of the job.

    President Trump is doing great, as evidenced by the continued rise of his job approval numbers..

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    Neil, do you remember posting Michale's personal information?

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    News Flash: Russian "Spy" Ship turns out to be packed with Russian Bureaucrats trying to sneak ashore to help Putin run the country.

    In a stunning piece of investigative journalism that I just totally made up on the spot, in depth reports of "Ambassadors", "Under Secretaries", "Deputy Directors" and "Deputy U.S. trade representatives" who are shovel ready are packed aboard a 300 foot long Russian cruise ship misidentified as a spy ship.

    "Ve are ready to ron ze country, ve hear you need lots of burritocrats" said one sea sick minor politician from St. Petersburg. "Zere are lots of us. We very good, you employ us, no?"

    The 45 administration now admits that most of the phone calls to Russian spies were just a misunderstanding. Flynn stated that "I needed an Under Secretary and my friend gave me the number of this hiring agency - I called them 4-5 a day hoping to get anybody. No Americans will do these jobs, the last Ambassador to Romania is now picking strawberries in the California Central Valley".

    Our correspondent in Fresno confirmed this. It is like a meeting of the National Security Council out here. There is one peach farm where two Under Secretaries got into a fight over a ladder."

    45 continues to golf on the weekends.

  33. [33] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz-2

    Thanks, signed it. Nuclear war at the sole discretion of the CIC is one of the worst ideas ever. A human factors safety mechanism needs to be thought thru and codified.

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's because your Democrats are slow-walking everything..

    Har har - the Democrats are not nominating people? You do know that 45 is meant to propose people before the Democrats and obstruct, right?

    661 of 696 positions don't have a nominee for the Democrats to obstruct.

    This is like a QB handing off to a RB that isn't there and then telling us that the opposition defense is too good.

  35. [35] 
    neilm wrote:

    That's because your Democrats are slow-walking everything..

    Bwaaahaaahaa.

    He has dropped 9-15 points in the last two weeks.

    Or did you miss the numbers I posted yesterday?

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/02/14/just-the-first-to-go/#comment-94418

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    President Trump is doing great, as evidenced by the continued rise of his job approval numbers..

    Bwaaahaaahaa.

    He has dropped 9-15 points in the last two weeks.

    Or did you miss the numbers I posted yesterday?

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/02/14/just-the-first-to-go/#comment-94418

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    News Flash: Russian "Spy" Ship

    FAKE News Flash: Russian "Spy" Ship...

    There... Fixed it for you... :D

    He has dropped 9-15 points in the last two weeks.

    Or did you miss the numbers I posted yesterday?

    You mean the cherry picked numbers you posted yesterday where you only showed the numbers that supported yer agenda and ignored the numbers that didn't?? :D

    I would have thought ya would have learned yer lesson about doing that.

    Being that it gave us President Trump, I mean.. :D

    Har har - the Democrats are not nominating people? You do know that 45 is meant to propose people before the Democrats and obstruct, right?

    The Democrats have blatantly admitted that they are slow-walking everything..

    If you have a problem with that, take it up with yer Democrats.. :D

    Nuclear war at the sole discretion of the CIC is one of the worst ideas ever.

    It's also factually impossible..

    But why let facts get in the way of a good hysterical fear-mongering partisan rant.. :D

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    This is what happens when a bunch of clowns who primaried there way into the government by bottom feeding suddenly and unexpectedly get into power - they are the dog that caught the car running at full speed and slammed their nose into it, and are now sitting dazed and bloodied at the side of the road.

    What utter incompetence. What stupidity on display for everybody to see. What a shame for our once great country.

  39. [39] 
    neilm wrote:

    there -> their

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale:

    I deliberately picked the numbers from RealClearPolitics because those were the ones you said were the only reliable ones a couple of weeks ago.

    Just an FYI there.

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    Nuclear war at the sole discretion of the CIC is one of the worst ideas ever.

    It's also factually impossible..

    And anyone who says different is displaying gross and willful ignorance or has an agenda in play....

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    I deliberately picked the numbers from RealClearPolitics because those were the ones you said were the only reliable ones a couple of weeks ago.

    Just an FYI there.<

    But they are STILL just individual poll numbers cherry picked to show the worst....

    Factually, it doesn't matter whether you cherry picked individual poll numbers from their own websites or from a compilation, you are STILL just cherry picking individual poll numbers...

    You are picking ONLY the numbers that support your agenda and ignoring the numbers that DON'T support yer agenda..

    GIGO.. Garbage In, Garbage Out...

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    What utter incompetence. What stupidity on display for everybody to see. What a shame for our once great country.

    And, it's only Democrats and establishment Republicans who are whining and bitching..

    The rest, the patriotic Americans, are firmly behind President Trump..

    And that just annoys ya'all to no end.. :D

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    I deliberately picked the numbers from RealClearPolitics because those were the ones you said were the only reliable ones a couple of weeks ago.

    Just an FYI there.

    The ONLY reliable poll is the RCP Poll Of Polls...

    And THAT has had President Trumps number rising steadily with a minor hiccup now and again...

    THAT is the ONLY poll around here that has any meaning whatsoever...

  45. [45] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Saw a funny photo earlier comparing Trump's signature on his Executive Orders with a polygraph reading of someone lying.... They were identical!

    It's clear that Putin has made Trump his BITCH by the way that Trump refuses to say anything that could possibly be interpreted as a negative complaint. Trump is like all those women in Lifetime movies: defending the actions of his abuser and trying to spin the horrible things Putin does as if they were no big deal. "We've got killers here, too! What's a few dead journalists?"

    I do have one question: Why does the press keep stating that Flynn-flam lied to VP Pence about not talking to the Russians about sanctions -- as if there was NO WAY that Pence could have be in on it? Is it just so that the obvious follow up question asked is: "Why aren't they saying that he lied to Trump about this?" Ok, 2 questions.

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    Why does the press keep stating that Flynn-flam lied to VP Pence about not talking to the Russians about sanctions -

    The National Security Adviser talked to the Russian Ambassador about Russian Sanctions!???

    "OH MY GOD, WHAT A FUCKING NIGHTMARE!!!!"
    -Marissa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    Yer kidding, right??

  47. [47] 
    MHorton wrote:

    Michale stop talking to me.

  48. [48] 
    MHorton wrote:

    As usual I find your character attacks childish and frustrating.

    I am not a liberal. Stop acting as though it's impossible to see clearly because I disagree with some GOP policies.

    Stop accusing me of things I've never done and of having opinions I don't have.

  49. [49] 
    MHorton wrote:

    Also, you're still lying.

    You're definitions of words (45 didn't win Mi, Wi or PA "handily" he won them by the slimmest of margins).

    You practice Whataboutism, and I'm tired of it.

    If you can keep the outright insults down, whatever, these guys can talk to your pointlessly ideological self.

    But leave me alone.

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    Yes, former adviser Flynn was dishonest, and he's paying the price, as he should. but i think in general we need to raise the conversation level and cut down on the name-calling (or at least be subtler about it, like kick's "PT" moniker). that sort of discussion plays into the president's wheelhouse, and can be turned right back in the other direction - racist nicknames about senator warren's native american heritage, for example.

    JL

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    but i think in general we need to raise the conversation level and cut down on the name-calling (or at least be subtler about it, like kick's "PT" moniker).

    Personally, I think Neil's moniker is spot on.. :D

  52. [52] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @Mr. Horton,

    If you find michale's commentary so infuriating, as it sometimes is, don't respond, or post on the substance without getting into the minutiae of who said what about whom. it's a rabbit hole not worth traversing. michale is not a righty troll, but he's contrarian enough to play the part of one if he thinks it gets you worked up, as it clearly has. He has already agreed to detente on the "who's a troll" discussion, and i suggest you accept.

    JL

  53. [53] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @poet he's not a "righty troll" but he's a troll.

    He hasn't agreed on anything that I saw.

    "but he's contrarian enough to play the part of one if he thinks it gets you worked up, as it clearly has."

    That's trolling my friend.

    Also, I'm contrarian enough to keep this going forever.

  54. [54] 
    TheStig wrote:

    MHorton-

    I sympathize with your quest completely, but you cannot and should not try and reason with a troll. Been there, done that, it produces heat but no light.

    Just block the SOB with Tamper Monkey and be rid of him. I'm pretty sure 98% of the people around here agree with your take on his trolling, so in effect you just provide a different form of comment clutter for the rest of us to "yeah, yeah" scroll over. Let him shout himself horse in the dark.

  55. [55] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @Stig I agreed with that for a long time, but it clearly isn't improving, and ignoring doesn't work because it's WORSE seeing a bunch of replies to his nonsense.

    I'm tired of trolls being allowed to do what they want because decent people are made uncomfortable by what is required to stand up to them.

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    The ONLY reliable poll is the RCP Poll Of Polls...

    And THAT has had President Trumps number rising steadily with a minor hiccup now and again..

    That is what I was looking for - but couldn't find it - only the detailed numbers, so I selected the polls that had three weeks of data - do you have a link to the historical RCP Poll of Polls?

  57. [57] 
    MHorton wrote:

    Anyone want to tell Michale to stop naming me and then lying and insulting me?

    This is the second thread he could have just walked away on, but instead he responds and attacks my integrity.

  58. [58] 
    neilm wrote:

    I sympathize with your quest completely, but you cannot and should not try and reason with a troll. Been there, done that, it produces heat but no light.

    I've tried the same thing. Similar sympathy for your frustration. I came out the other side, and now just make my points and refute with verifiable evidence that is usually rejected - but I'm really targeting the other readers of these comments to ensure they see my sources. If I can be seen as logical and reliable to all but one person reading, I'm doing better than I do just about everywhere else in my life ;)

  59. [59] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    That is what I was looking for - but couldn't find it - only the detailed numbers, so I selected the polls that had three weeks of data - do you have a link to the historical RCP Poll of Polls?

    Yea, there isn't a history yet established. Maybe RCP is waiting for a couple months worth of data before they graph it..

    But there has been a general upwards trend even if there is a slight jaunt downward now and again..

    Once the graph is establishes, we'll both have our baseline...

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @MH,

    Just because someone engages in trolling doesn't make them a troll, as you yourself demonstrate. but two people continuing to troll each other out of contrarian stubbornness does nothing to contribute to the level of discussion in this forum. if you're determined to get into a trolling match with michale, then you're making yourself into more of a nuisance than he is, and proving him right about you in the process. again, please do not engage.

    JL

  61. [61] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    . .the RCP Poll Of Polls... has had President Trumps number rising steadily with a minor hiccup now and again...

    But the knot in the middle of the rope has barely moved since election day, and if you take Rasmussen out of the mix, 45's numbers soften like baby poo.

    But the gist of it is that the electorate remains as divided today as it was on election day, split about 45-45 with the middle ten percent undecided, perhaps confused, and ready to chase the next rubber ball that flies by. Welcome to Polarized America.

    45's reaction has been to simply assert that his numbers are better than they are, and to attempt to bully his agenda into being. Call it 'the Putin approach'. This has been met with catcalls and loud guffaws from the other 45 - all of those who didn't vote for him, and increasingly believe that he should be impeached. This is America after all, not Russia.

    Things will remain this way until either moderate Republicans tire of trading principle for job security, or 45 realizes that he can't be president of only half a country.

    I'd bet on the former rather than the latter. MSNBC is already filching moderate GOP voices from FoX news, and moderate GOP senators have rallied around a vigorous investigation of Russia-gate. Let's let that marinate for a minute, and see what happens.

  62. [62] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @poet I'm not here to prove myself morally superior.

    And yes, anyone who engages in trolling FOR FUN, is a troll. That's the definition of a troll; someone who antagonizes others for entertainment.

    I'm not going to let lies and trolling go unanswered. If you don't like it, I suggest you guys convince him to stop. Because telling me to be the bigger man isn't going to work.

    I've been the bigger man for years, watching this go on. I'm tired of it.

  63. [63] 
    michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    But the knot in the middle of the rope has barely moved since election day, and if you take Rasmussen out of the mix, 45's numbers soften like baby poo.

    ANd if you take the low numbers out of the mix, President Trump's numbers are looking downright awesome..

    In other words, if you use your own set of alternate "facts" you are proven correct..

    But if you use the REAL set of facts based in reality, you are wrong...

    Sa la vie.. :D

  64. [64] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @MH,

    if you're not trying to prove moral superiority, what ARE you trying to prove? it's not as if you're going to rid this place of michale by spamming the forum with flame-bait, which you know he'll bite like a fifty pound catfish. as TS says, even those who agree with you generally don't see the point in tilting at that particular windmill, and prefer not to have to scroll through the process.

    JL

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    Things will remain this way until either moderate Republicans tire of trading principle for job security, or 45 realizes that he can't be president of only half a country.

    I'd bet on the former rather than the latter.

    Spot on. Here are the three goals I think most rank and file congresspeople and senators have:

    1. Pro-life supreme court pick
    2. Tax cuts for the wealthy
    3. Repeal Obamacare (without incurring a disaster)

    Once they have these they will probably judge 45's value on the impact he will have on their 2018 election chances. If his actions are still prompting 100's of angry people to turn up at their Town Halls then they will start to distance themselves from him.

    I think 45 is going to go bananas when he starts getting dissed by his own Party - and he is going to start a "loyalty" battle in the Republican base, splitting the fanboys from the traditional Republicans.

  66. [66] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I think 45 is going to go bananas when he starts getting dissed by his own Party - and he is going to start a "loyalty" battle in the Republican base, splitting the fanboys from the traditional Republicans.

    Absolutely. The question is not if, but when.

  67. [67] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @poet I'm not trying to PROVE anything.

    I'm trying to grind things to a halt every time he trolls so that the people here act as a society is supposed to, and enforce basic rules of behavior on its members, via pressure, ostracization, or private conversations.

    My IDEAL result would be an end to the personal attacks and actual debates.

    It's up to him if he wants that to happen. So long as trolling and character assaults aren't happening, then I have no problem.

    Notice this very thread; I didn't flame. I pointed out what he's doing wrong; I told him to stop talking to me.

    Telling someone they are lying isn't flaming; telling someone they are accusing you of things you haven't done isn't flaming.

    He's being much more civil today, at so am I.

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    I think 45 is going to go bananas when he starts getting dissed by his own Party -

    Yea, cause the bothered him SOOOO much during the Primary and the General.. :D

    Ya'all are simply rehashing old and proven false wish-ful thinking....

    When ya'all gonna learn that wishing it to happen will NOT make it happen... :D

  69. [69] 
    MHorton wrote:

    *an end to personal attacks, and freedom for actual debate.

    That worded to sound like i didn't want debate.

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    When ya'all gonna learn that wishing it to happen will NOT make it happen... :D

    There is always hope, Michale.

  71. [71] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @Balthasar - 45 has already done that. He peeled his voters away months ago, any feeling that they are on one side is an illusion of convenience.

    It's the same thing Bernie could have done if he hadn't conceded and supported Hillary very loudly.

  72. [72] 
    MHorton wrote:

    I think the extent of 45's efforts to drive a wedge in GOP voters is going to depend largely on how many Senators oppose his agenda, and how the protests and whatnot go down in the reddish-purple states.

    Extended grassroots resistance is more likely to help the GOP stay together longer, as they have a common enemy.

    It's an interesting situatoin; it looks like the less the Democrats do the faster the GOP schisms will come to the fore.

  73. [73] 
    John M wrote:

    Elizabeth wrote:

    "What are the forces that might prevent Congress from taking legislative action to curtail the authority of the president?

    And, if they act to do that, then what is next?

    Do you see this presidency surviving its first term?"

    Despite what Michale thinks, I think it is going to be a very interesting next TWO years. Because I do believe that the Trump administration is not going to survive beyond the next mid-term elections, regardless of whether the Republicans retain or lose control of Congress.

    As for the American Presidency, I think you might see and Congress pass some kind of Constitutional amendment to be submitted to the states for ratification, regarding changing the nature of the Presidency itself. I think that's the only way it could be done, and not thru just simple legislation.

  74. [74] 
    TheStig wrote:

    MH-

    The problem with the reasoned response approach is that it doesn't work. As a general rule of thumb, EVERY comment sent in generates at least one more comment from The Troll. Responding with counter comments simply generates a positive feedback loop.

    When a strategy doesn't work, try something else.

    We have problem with toxic comments. As any toxicologist will tell you, the first line of defense against any toxin is to avoid exposure. So use the TamperMonkey and encourage other readers to get themselves similarly vaccinated. If most people sign on, that pretty much gets rid of the junk posts - except for the little one line header with a name, date and +.

    Newbies will figure out the Troll is full of shit fast enough. Maybe old hands can drop a hint now and then.

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    There is always hope, Michale.

    And Change too.... :D

    I prefer a more pragmatic and realistic approach... :D

    Time will tell...

    The problem is the Left wants to destroy President Trumpo while STILL ignoring the middle class patriotic Americans who elected him President...

    Democrats can do one, but they cannot do both....

    And Democrats can't acknowledge the middle class patriotic Americans without utterly and completely changing WHAT a Democrat is...

    It's an un-envious corner the Democrats have painted themselves into..

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    JM,

    As for the American Presidency, I think you might see and Congress pass some kind of Constitutional amendment to be submitted to the states for ratification, regarding changing the nature of the Presidency itself. I think that's the only way it could be done, and not thru just simple legislation.

    Yer kidding, right??? :D

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    I think the extent of 45's efforts to drive a wedge in GOP voters is going to depend largely on how many Senators oppose his agenda, and how the protests and whatnot go down in the reddish-purple states.

    The problem with that reasoning is that President Trump has proven time and time again that he doesn't care what the Senators do.. He will go directly to the people and the people will choose the President every time..

    This has been proven time and time again..

    Extended grassroots resistance is more likely to help the GOP stay together longer, as they have a common enemy.

    Once again, the reality is that the grassroots are with the President...

    It's an interesting situatoin; it looks like the less the Democrats do the faster the GOP schisms will come to the fore.

    The less the Democrats do, the more room the Republicans will have to do what they want...

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yea, cause the bothered him SOOOO much during the Primary and the General.. :D

    Here is the problem Michale. There is a very strong "throw the bums out" anger in the U.S. at the moment. It was stronger on the right than the left in 2016. This was understandable because the right had been losing the big battles - e.g. Gay Marriage, the White House twice, Healthcare reform.

    The left tried Bernie, but the anger wasn't as widespread and people like me wanted incremental improvement over revolution, and I was in the majority on the left - right or wrong.

    The "throw the bums out" anger is intensifying on the left - you are missing this in your right wing bubble, just as I missed the pro-Trump anger on the right because in my bubble no obvious con man as buffoonish as 45 would ever win an American Presidential election. In two years time most people's lives will probably be at best the same as they are at the moment, and people are not happy bunnies. With the Republicans in full charge, they will get the blame.

    Mid terms are usually good for Republicans because their base is more reliable, but just a few percentage points of ennui on the right and a few percentage points of anger on the left could deliver a shock to the complacency the right currently have.

  79. [79] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "The National Security Adviser talked to the Russian Ambassador about Russian Sanctions!???

    "OH MY GOD, WHAT A FUCKING NIGHTMARE!!!!"
    -Marissa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    Yer kidding, right??"

    EXCEPT, AT THE TIME, Flynn was NOT the National Security Adviser. He was in fact, a PRIVATE citizen, who was a member of Trump's CAMPAIGN TEAM, Trump, who had not yet assumed the office of President, and Flynn was working to UNDERMINE the OFFICIAL foreign policy of the USA at the time, instituted by the ACTUAL President, by possibly promising a lessening of sanctions in exchange for who knows what.

    And this doesn't bother you even a little???

  80. [80] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Do you see this presidency surviving its first term?

    Not if Trump is dumb enough to pick a war with the spooks. That path will lead to impeachment and resignation/conviction.....

  81. [81] 
    neilm wrote:

    The problem with that reasoning is that President Trump has proven time and time again that he doesn't care what the Senators do.. He will go directly to the people and the people will choose the President every time..

    The next election is 2018 and Congress and 1/3 of the Senate is running. What happens if Trump goes over their heads with a message to the people that he isn't being supported properly by the party?

  82. [82] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @Michale

    I don't think 45 cares what "Senators" do, but he's shown time and again that ANYONE who directly opposes him is going to be attacked.

    That's why he doesn't really talk about judicial issues on the large scale (he doesn't care what judges do) but he attacks judges who rule against him (because they opposed him)

    So, it's not going to be that SENATORS oppose him; it's going to be that ANYONE opposed him publicly.

    He showed in the primary that he's more than willing to hit Republicans hard and low any time they challenge him directly.

    As Rubio, Cruz or Jeb about it.

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    Here is the problem Michale. There is a very strong "throw the bums out" anger in the U.S. at the moment. It was stronger on the right than the left in 2016. This was understandable because the right had been losing the big battles - e.g. Gay Marriage, the White House twice, Healthcare reform.

    Agreed...

    Mid terms are usually good for Republicans because their base is more reliable, but just a few percentage points of ennui on the right and a few percentage points of anger on the left could deliver a shock to the complacency the right currently have.

    All things being equal, you would be correct...

    But all things are NOT equal..

    Democrats have to defend **25** seats in 2018...

    It's going to take a *LOT* more than a few percentage points to turn things to the Democrats..

    Add to that, the fact that the Democrats STILL haven't recovered from the utter decimation that was wrought in 2016.....

    Democrats MIGHT have a chance in 2020 and THAT is only if President Trump does something akin to WWIII...

    Barring THAT bad of a scroo-up, the Democrat Party *MIGHT* be ready to go in 2024.. I'll be like 90 then and won't care... :D heh

  84. [84] 
    MHorton wrote:

    *DAMNIT ASK RUBIO CRUZ OR JEB

  85. [85] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @Michale do you read 538?

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-very-early-look-at-the-battle-for-the-house-in-2018/

    That article is a pretty good analysis of what we're talking about right now in House races; the Democrats have a steep hill to climb, but unless 45's approval rates go up pretty fast they have a fair shot at retaking the House; assuming they're not completely incompetent at politics (they didn't even run candidates in a bunch of races, as 538 points out.)

    The GOP doesn't really control the house though, because the House Freedom Caucus is enough to derail any GOP-only bills.

    So, even fi the Dems don't win the House, any reduction of the GOP's lead there will empower the smaller factions of the GOP, leading to (possibly) more infighting.

    Again, it seems to be setting up that the better the Democrats do, the stronger the GOP will be.

  86. [86] 
    michale wrote:

    I don't think 45 cares what "Senators" do, but he's shown time and again that ANYONE who directly opposes him is going to be attacked.

    "The best defense is a good offense. And I intend to start being offensive!!"
    -Captain James T Kirk

    It's also a good business strategy...

    That's why he doesn't really talk about judicial issues on the large scale (he doesn't care what judges do) but he attacks judges who rule against him (because they opposed him)

    OR... because he feels they have made bad decisions...

    Time will tell who is right or wrong, but my money is on the President..

    All it's going to take is one terrorist attack on US soil and the judges and the Democrats are going to be in deep kimshee...

    So, it's not going to be that SENATORS oppose him; it's going to be that ANYONE opposed him publicly.

    I think it is more of a case of HOW the President is opposed...

    One doesn't get to be as successful in business as the President has been by flying off half cocked at the slightest imagined slight...

    That is what it always comes back to..

    The man that ya'all describe simply COULD NOT have been as successful in business and, heretofore, in politics...

    He showed in the primary that he's more than willing to hit Republicans hard and low any time they challenge him directly.

    As Rubio, Cruz or Jeb about it.

    Exactly my point...

    President Trump is truly a Republican in name only..

    And THAT is why I think we're going to find that Republican pressure on the president is NOT going to have the effect that ya'all think it will have...

    And, when that happens, I honestly believe it will be the President who comes out on top because he has the American people behind him....

  87. [87] 
    michale wrote:

    *DAMNIT ASK RUBIO CRUZ OR JEB

    The EDIT function is on the way... :D

  88. [88] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @Michale I don't think Republican pressure is going to influence 45 at all.

    He's going to treat them like everyone else he perceives as attacking him; he will go at them hard and fast, and take no prisoners.

    What we're saying is if he goes after them, the most effective way to do it will be to turn their own base against them, which he can do because he controls some 1/3 of their base completely, and another 1/3 is willing to see how he does.

    But if the Senate starts subpeonaing his people, or if Sessions starts an investigation that 45 disapproves of, it will be civil war in the GOP, make no mistake about it.

  89. [89] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "As for the American Presidency, I think you might see and Congress pass some kind of Constitutional amendment to be submitted to the states for ratification, regarding changing the nature of the Presidency itself. I think that's the only way it could be done, and not thru just simple legislation.

    Yer kidding, right??? :D"

    No, I am not.

    For example: the 25th amendment on presidential succession was a direct response to the assassination of Kennedy, and was prescient when it came to the presidential succession in the aftermath of Watergate. Just like the 26th amendment lowering the voting age to 18 came in the wake of the Vietnam War.

    If Trump gets involved in a scandal that blows up as big as Watergate did, why is an amendment concerning the American presidency yet again, so far fetched?

  90. [90] 
    MHorton wrote:

    It's like CW says in the article; the Republicans have no foils; the Democrats have so few avenues to block them that they're going to be unable to blame the Democrats for their lack of success.

    It also matters WHAT they oppose him on; I doubt he cared about Pudzer so I doubt he'll go after them after up to a dozen GOP senators said they wouldn't back him.

    But if they try and stop one of his signature programs, I can't see him just letting it go.

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    Testing

  92. [92] 
    neilm wrote:

    He's going to treat them like everyone else he perceives as attacking him; he will go at them hard and fast, and take no prisoners.

    Republican on Republican violence can only help the Democrats.

    Now all we need is a young leader from the left with Bernie's presence and a vision for progressives.

  93. [93] 
    neilm wrote:

    But if they try and stop one of his signature programs, I can't see him just letting it go.

    Tear down that Wall, Mr. Senator!

  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris wrote [147] {moved forward from yesterday}

    I suggest we change the name from Weigantia to Springerville.

    michale wrote [151]

    heh :D Yea, it does get weird around here..
    Which wouldn't happen if people would just get over the fact that I post here and quit trying to delve almost 20 years into my past.. I mean, jeeezus, what kind of sick twisted person does that??

    "Sick twisted person"... I will let my buddies know what you think of them, and I'm quite certain they will take that little nugget as a compliment (particularly considering its source). LOL

    You can stop worrying about someone stalking you. Speaking for myself, I've got an infinite number of ways to waste my time, and that wouldn't remotely be one of them.

    The fact is, Neil posted your name, email and home addresses awhile back; it's actually still posted there.

    So let's review. Whenever commenters on this board, myself included, attempt to have a rational conversation, the disruption and name calling by you begins, which naturally leads to the question: Is this guy a troll? You have to admit, it has been the topic of conversation around here many times.

    So not unlike Garth Brooks, "I've got friends in low places"... if you know what I mean. My curiosity about your trolliness -- rhymes with holiness -- finally got the better of me so I made a quick phone call. It's good to have friends in the very lowest places in this wonderful free country of ours.

    It would serve you well to keep in mind that a commenter on this board knows exactly who you are and can keep you honest when you decide to get all up on your high horse... I know you know what I'm talking about... and I've got nothing but pity for you. :)

  95. [95] 
    michale wrote:

    I don't much read 538, I'll say that right up front..

    That article is a pretty good analysis of what we're talking about right now in House races; the Democrats have a steep hill to climb, but unless 45's approval rates go up pretty fast they have a fair shot at retaking the House; assuming they're not completely incompetent at politics (they didn't even run candidates in a bunch of races, as 538 points out.)

    We are in complete agreement about this.. We may differ on the steepness of the Democrat's climb, that is probably certain...

    And I completely agree that, if President Trump royally screws up (a definite possibility) then all bets are off...

    But if the President can avoid starting WWIII, I think the GOP will be in good shape to prevail in 2018...

    That's how low the bar has been set for President Trump..

    So, even fi the Dems don't win the House, any reduction of the GOP's lead there will empower the smaller factions of the GOP, leading to (possibly) more infighting.

    Logical...

    Again, it seems to be setting up that the better the Democrats do, the stronger the GOP will be.

    I think what we are seeing here is that the better one Party does, the more the opposing Party's base is energized and the more confident the opposing Party is in taking on the other Party...

    Now don't ask me to explain that cuz I lost myself after the 3rd Party... :D

  96. [96] 
    Kick wrote:

    3... 2... 1 :)

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    The fact is, Neil posted your name, email and home addresses awhile back; it's actually still posted there.

    @#$%V - sorry Michale - I thought I'd taken that down

  98. [98] 
    michale wrote:

    If Trump gets involved in a scandal that blows up as big as Watergate did, why is an amendment concerning the American presidency yet again, so far fetched?

    Because a lot has changed since the 1960s....

    Put another way.. If President Trump scrooes up in the magnitude that would allow 38 states to ALL agree on a drastic measure such as a Constitutional Amendment...???

    It is unlikely there would be much of a country left....

  99. [99] 
    neilm wrote:

    The fact is, Neil posted your name, email and home addresses awhile back; it's actually still posted there.

    @#$%V - sorry Michale - I thought I'd taken that down

    I did take it down - nobody else was meant to see it. I can't understand why it is still up on Google Drive. I don't have the link any longer, but the jpg isn't in the drive folder - maybe a Google Drive bug?

    BTW it was just so I could send Michale a Christmas Card - for all that we poke fun at each other there is not anything personal.

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    Neil,

    @#$%V - sorry Michale - I thought I'd taken that down

    Max nichts...

    My forbearance is still maintained.. :D

    I WILL mention that I don't respond well to threats or extortion.. THIS much should have been made painfully obvious...

    The fact that someone is using allegedly compromising information to try and extort and control me says more about that person than it does about me...

    That's all I am going to say about it....

  101. [101] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, Google Drive is frankly annoying. The doc was in my trash, but the link still worked. I tried permanently deleting it and that didn't work either.

    I've now disabled the link (hopefully).

    This is not good - I use Google Drive as a way to post items temporarily a lot, now I'm going to have to do a lot of clean up.

    Sorry again Michale.

  102. [102] 
    michale wrote:

    Sorry again Michale.

    It's already forgotten..

    Sorry?? Sorry for what?? :D

  103. [103] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @Neil all you have to do is unshare the file, that will cripple all links.

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm [100]

    I did take it down - nobody else was meant to see it. I can't understand why it is still up on Google Drive. I don't have the link any longer, but the jpg isn't in the drive folder - maybe a Google Drive bug?

    Well, Neil, I do read every post... sorry. I could have posted the link so everyone could just go back right now and click on it, but I don't roll that way. You should get with CW and take the information off the comment board. It contains your email and his personal information. Michale quoted it so you'll need to remove it from multiple comment boxes. :)

  105. [105] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @michale you should read 538 if you truly care about facts; Nate and Co are very good about such things.

    He's the only one who gave 45 a real chance of winning (I think it was around 35% last check before the voting started) and he continually criticized the MSM for it's narrative of Hillary's inevitable win.

    I don't think 45 has to screw up royally to stay unpopular; he lost the popular vote, and I haven't seen anything from him that looks like it would appeal to moderate Dems to bolster his number.

    And the NeverTrump Republicans aren't happy about things right now; if you go to Redstate you can see that in effect.

  106. [106] 
    michale wrote:

    He's the only one who gave 45 a real chance of winning (I think it was around 35% last check before the voting started) and he continually criticized the MSM for it's narrative of Hillary's inevitable win.

    I do recall that Silver took an INCREDIBLE amount of heat for giving Trump more of a chance than the Left felt was warranted......

    As a matter of fact, I believe I quoted 538 a lot in the months before the election..

    But I was never a regular reader of the site before or since...

    I don't think 45 has to screw up royally to stay unpopular; he lost the popular vote, and I haven't seen anything from him that looks like it would appeal to moderate Dems to bolster his number.

    Trade...... Planned Parenthood...... Tax Overhaul..... Infrastructure....

    President Trump and the Left are on the same page on a lot of issues...

  107. [107] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    geez...

  108. [108] 
    MHorton wrote:

    "Trade...... Planned Parenthood...... Tax Overhaul..... Infrastructure...."

    He can't do those alone, and on at least one of those (PP) the majority of people don't want to fight over it.

    And the rest he has to get through Congress, which is going to be harder than he thinks it is.

    If he manages to get legislative successes, maybe. But I don't see any indication he's willing to compromise, and again; the platform he got elected on doesn't appeal to the majority of Americans, that's why he lost the popular vote and why his approval ratings are still low.

  109. [109] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @Michale I actually got into a Twitter fight with one of the guys who wrote a Nate Silver hit piece on Huffpo.

  110. [110] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Brits are finally looking on the bright side of Brexit:

    http://whybrexitisgreat.co.uk/

  111. [111] 
    michale wrote:

    @Michale I actually got into a Twitter fight with one of the guys who wrote a Nate Silver hit piece on Huffpo.

    Personally, I think Silver was unfairly attacked..

    All he was doing was saying, "Ya know, people. This might not be as much of a slam dunk as ya'all think.."

    It must have been a quandary for Silver on 9 Nov, eh? :D

  112. [112] 
    michale wrote:

    He can't do those alone, and on at least one of those (PP) the majority of people don't want to fight over it.

    Yep, he is going to need Democrat help..

    But, from all reports, the Democrats are taking a page (the WRONG page) from the GOP handbook and opposing everything, JUST because it comes from President Trump..

    While, from all outward appearances, it worked out well for the GOP, I have doubts that the Democrats can have the same success...

    I mean, are Democrats going to shut down the government to stop President Trump??

    How far down the GOP rabbit hole is the Democrat Party willing to go???

  113. [113] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Ttrump is hiring some plumbers for a big job in Utah. Don't forget to bring some sticks!

  114. [114] 
    MHorton wrote:

    "But, from all reports, the Democrats are taking a page (the WRONG page) from the GOP handbook and opposing everything, JUST because it comes from President Trump.."

    Well, to be fair, the Democrats INITIALLY wanted to work with him where it made sense. Their base made it clear that isn't an option.

    Honestly, the Democrat's BEST possible solution involves turning 45 into a true outsider and getting him to push the GOP to do those things.

    But their base won't allow them to do that, so they're stuck doing something ineffective that only galvanizes the GOP base.

  115. [115] 
    MHorton wrote:

    *cont* The advantage the Dems have is that numerically, there are more Democrats and left-leaning independents than there are conservatives, particularly since the right leaning independents seem split on Trump. Historically, the GOP just gets their smaller base to vote at higher rates; if the Dem base shows up to the polls for the next two elections, they could take back the entire government, based purely on the fact that they have something like a 5% edge in demographics right now.

    But they have to overcome the GOP's gerrymandering, the lead they already have, and the GOPs solid lead in getting their voters out in midterms.

  116. [116] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    In 45s utterly bizarre press conference, one take away is that 45's definition of 'fake news' isn't about content. It's about tone - if it's critical, then it's fake.

  117. [117] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, to be fair, the Democrats INITIALLY wanted to work with him where it made sense. Their base made it clear that isn't an option.

    Troo... But in my not so humble opinion, that is very short sighted of the base..

    They are not going to win over middle class Trump supporters by moving FURTHER Left...

  118. [118] 
    MHorton wrote:

    "Troo... But in my not so humble opinion, that is very short sighted of the base.."

    Nobody has ever claimed that mobs of people are anything but short-sighted.

    "They are not going to win over middle class Trump supporters by moving FURTHER Left..."

    Democrats don't NEED Trump supporters to win though. They just need THEIR voters to turn out in higher numbers. That was kind of my point.

    It's risky, but it has a fair chance of working.

  119. [119] 
    MHorton wrote:

    I mean, look at the House Freedom Caucus; they're STILL completely short-sighted, and they've been at it for years.

  120. [120] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump at his press conference opined that his administration “is running like a fine-tuned machine.”

    Like a vintage Sunbeam Alpine: fine tuned before every trip out of the driveway, and often by the side of the road.

  121. [121] 
    MHorton wrote:

    "Like a vintage Sunbeam Alpine: fine tuned before every trip out of the driveway, and often by the side of the road."

    You're dating yourself with that one haha.

    Wanna watch some Dobie Gillis later?

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [101] I WILL mention that I don't respond well to threats or extortion.. THIS much should have been made painfully obvious... The fact that someone is using allegedly compromising information to try and extort and control me says more about that person than it does about me... That's all I am going to say about it.... Wow... "threats or extortion." Seriously? I genuinely feel sorry for you, and that's what you decide to post? When did anyone either threaten or try to extort you? :)

    This kind of word twisting is illustrative of the problem. All I said was that you can stop worrying about being stalked because I wouldn't waste my time that way. I also said I know who you are so you can come down off your high horse. Nothing more.

    Not content with just leaving it alone a few days ago, you kept it up and kept it up, and so now here we are, and you have only yourself to thank for it because you couldn't stop with the personal insults (go back and review if you need to).

    Now......

    Let it go. Let it go. - Elsa, Frozen

  123. [123] 
    michale wrote:

    Nobody has ever claimed that mobs of people are anything but short-sighted.

    OK, you got me on that one.. :D

    Democrats don't NEED Trump supporters to win though. They just need THEIR voters to turn out in higher numbers. That was kind of my point.

    I disagree.. You have to remember that millions of Trump voters WERE Obama voters..... Granted, I interchanged "supporters" with "voters"...

    To become relevant again the Democrats are going to need the majority of Independents and NPAs and a good portion of those who voted for Trump in 2016...

    The base of the Democrat Party is not large enough to win elections all by themselves...

    Maybe in 50 years... But not now.. Not in the foreseeable future...

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    The base of the Democrat Party is not large enough to win elections all by themselves...

    And the majority of the Democrat Party base is simply not compatible with the majority of middle class Trump voters..

    The Democrat Party is going to have to choose..

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT

    michale [101]

    I WILL mention that I don't respond well to threats or extortion.. THIS much should have been made painfully obvious...

    The fact that someone is using allegedly compromising information to try and extort and control me says more about that person than it does about me...

    That's all I am going to say about it....

    Wow... "threats or extortion." Seriously? I genuinely feel sorry for you, and that's what you decide to post? When did anyone either threaten or try to extort you? :)

    This kind of word twisting is illustrative of the problem. All I said was that you can stop worrying about being stalked because I wouldn't waste my time that way. I also said I know who you are so you can come down off your high horse. Nothing more.

    Why did I even have to post this? Because not content with just leaving it alone a few days ago, you kept it up and kept it up, and so now here we are, and you have only yourself to thank for it because you couldn't stop with the personal insults (go back and review if you need to).

    Now......

    Let it go. Let it go. - Elsa, Frozen

  126. [126] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump at his press conference opined that his administration “is running like a fine-tuned machine.”

    Is he writing the jokes for the Late Night guys himself?

    Seriously - these lucky comedy writers went from coo, no-drama Obama to "it writes itself" 45.

    I've been reading some of the recent Onion headlines and they seem more real than actual reality.

  127. [127] 
    MHorton wrote:

    "I disagree.. You have to remember that millions of Trump voters WERE Obama voters..... Granted, I interchanged "supporters" with "voters"..."

    I think you're confusing people who really, passionately support 45 and people who just wanted change.

    There was a HUGE push for "something different" this time, and 45 won on that.

    But that doesn't work twice. He's gone from the rebel to "The Man" and now has to play on the other side of the fence.

    45's true followers are a minority, even within the GOP. The then built something of a coalition to get him the rest of the way.

    It's not unlike what Obama did in a lot of ways.

    They definitely have to choose between appealing to their base or Trump supporters, but I don't see why they'd choose the latter.

    Anyone except Hillary probably could have beat 45, because of how much of the GOP resists him. Hillary was a perfect storm; she fired up the base, she depressed her own base, and she's such a known entity that the "change things now!" energy completely opposes her.

    That's not even getting into the fact that in the Midwest (where she lost the election) Bill is still blamed for NAFTA, and NAFTA is blamed for taking factory jobs.

    And 45 still only won by the barest of margins; and he won with last minute voters who would have split most likely in a matchup similar to Bernie v Trump.

  128. [128] 
    neilm wrote:

    coo -> cool

  129. [129] 
    MHorton wrote:

    *For note on the "Anyone else could have beaten 45*

    The flip side of that is that I'm pretty sure any of a dozen other Republicans, including Romney, could have beaten Hillary much cleaner.

    She picked up a few hundred thousand votes in Texas over Obama, which would never happen with a true Republican nominee.

  130. [130] 
    Kick wrote:

    Neil,

    I sent you an email early this morning with the link to the information you posted a few months ago containing your information and Michale's. If you remember the email you used from the link, that's where I sent the information. Remember, it's in multiple posts because it was quoted. :)

  131. [131] 
    michale wrote:

    I think you're confusing people who really, passionately support 45 and people who just wanted change.

    Granted, they are two different groups, but that really doesn't matter..

    If the Democrats don't OFFER change, then those two groups will still go with President Trump and who the president endorses..

    But that doesn't work twice. He's gone from the rebel to "The Man" and now has to play on the other side of the fence.

    While I agree that he has taken a few steps in that direction (still PO'ed about him letting China off the hook vis a vis Taiwan) I doubt the steps he has taken has cost him any support..

    45's true followers are a minority, even within the GOP. The then built something of a coalition to get him the rest of the way.

    Maybe.. But a lot can happen in 4 years... Reagan faced similar hurdles and he overcame them...

    Anyone except Hillary probably could have beat 45, because of how much of the GOP resists him. Hillary was a perfect storm; she fired up the base, she depressed her own base, and she's such a known entity that the "change things now!" energy completely opposes her.

    NOT-45's problem was that she was an Establishment darling in an election where the Establishment was hated and despised...

    Any other NON Establishment candidate could have probably beaten Trump...

    NOT-45 was the WORST possible candidate the Democrat Party could have fielded...

    But the Democrats were more concerned with whose turn it was rather than electibility...

  132. [132] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @victoria,

    out of context it does read that way.

    JL

  133. [133] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If the Democrats don't OFFER change, then those two groups will still go with President Trump and who the president endorses..

    This is really key, Michale.

    The Democrats are in a very enviable position.

    Their congressional counterparts are treading water and so they are free to offer up cogent policy prescriptions for any number of issues, including immigration, healthcare reform, tax and regulatory reform, nuclear policy, etc, if for no other reason than to demonstrate they have solutions that are worthy of debate and implementation.

    This is how Democrats win big league two years from now.

  134. [134] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL [133]

    Well then, JL, please be sure to read the entire thing in actual context and consider his posts over the past couple days. He couldn't just let it go, had to keep up and keep up with the multiple personal insults to multiple posters. Then he made that post to Don with yet another insult.

    So with ample time given, I saw he wasn't going to let it go, and I finally answered setting out the facts. A genuine attempt to convince him to let it go. Nothing more. :)

  135. [135] 
    michale wrote:

    This is really key, Michale.

    Thank you.. I have my moments. :D

    The Democrats are in a very enviable position.

    They are if they can break free from ideological bondage and think about the people first and the Party second..

    Their congressional counterparts are treading water and so they are free to offer up cogent policy prescriptions for any number of issues, including immigration, healthcare reform, tax and regulatory reform, nuclear policy, etc, if for no other reason than to demonstrate they have solutions that are worthy of debate and implementation.

    Exactly.. They are lost in the woods so they have a real chance to rebuild from the ground up and create a worthwhile Party that puts country first..

    This is how Democrats win big league two years from now.

    If only they have the wisdom to grasp it...

  136. [136] 
    MHorton wrote:

    "While I agree that he has taken a few steps in that direction (still PO'ed about him letting China off the hook vis a vis Taiwan) I doubt the steps he has taken has cost him any support.."

    That's true; but he needs more than to not lose support. He needs to bring in fresh supporters from outside the right-wing, and I haven't seen anything yet to indicate he intends to do that.

    "NOT-45's problem was that she was an Establishment darling in an election where the Establishment was hated and despised...

    Any other NON Establishment candidate could have probably beaten Trump...

    NOT-45 was the WORST possible candidate the Democrat Party could have fielded...

    But the Democrats were more concerned with whose turn it was rather than electibility..."

    Yep. And their base has seen that and they see compromising with 45 as "business as usual" and "protecting their skins" instead of standing up for their constinutents; thus the base's insistence on complete opposition.

    And so we reach my original contention; if the Democrats can turn out their base with an agenda and candidates the fire them up, they don't need to compromise to win.

    But they HAVE to turn out their base; if they don't then they've basically ceded all ground to their opposition and gained nothing in return.

  137. [137] 
    TheStig wrote:

    MH 120

    Yeah, it was a friends High School car, was old then, would be vintage now. It was amazing how fine you could tune it, and how fast it came out of tune. Carbs. Lost art.

  138. [138] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Well, fast breaking doesn't quite do justice to the Trump story. It's like fast forwarding Nixon's Watergate...just dub in the Old Benny Hill music to get proper effect. Oh, somebody do that, but I've got no proper video skills or editing equipment.

    Yes, I am paleolithic....but I get a discount at the movies! My car other is chariot.

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:

    That's true; but he needs more than to not lose support. He needs to bring in fresh supporters from outside the right-wing, and I haven't seen anything yet to indicate he intends to do that.

    Perhaps.. But we're less than a month into his Presidency...

    And so we reach my original contention; if the Democrats can turn out their base with an agenda and candidates the fire them up, they don't need to compromise to win.

    But, as I pointed out, there is not enough of the base in the here and now to allow the Democrats to rely SOLELY on their base...

    Maybe in 50 years, but definitely not in the here and now..

    And anything that excites the base will turn off the middle class voters...

  140. [140] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Just finished watching the Trump press conference. Another old car metaphor: Dodge Rambler

  141. [141] 
    michale wrote:

    Just finished watching the Trump press conference. Another old car metaphor: Dodge Rambler

    Oooo careful...

    That will make CW fall in love with Trump!!! :D

  142. [142] 
    MHorton wrote:

    "And anything that excites the base will turn off the middle class voters..."

    The Democrat's base is made up of middle class voters in large part.

    Again, 45's win was so narrow that breaking even will almost assure a loss. He had every advantage possible and still only won by the tiniest of margins.

    They have the numbers; the number of people who identify as Democrat or tend to vote that way outnumber the total number of people who voted in the last election.

    It's about turnout, as it always has been.

  143. [143] 
    MHorton wrote:

    I think when you say "middle class" you mean "MidWest" which would make it accurate.

    The Democrats have lost the faith of the Rust Belt, but 45 never had any faith, they were just desperate enough to give anything new a chance.

    If he wants to keep them, he's going to have to produce results for them, as they aren't "Trump supporters" they were "opposition to the political establishment"

    But again, in 4 years 45 WILL BE the political establishment.

  144. [144] 
    michale wrote:

    I think when you say "middle class" you mean "MidWest" which would make it accurate.

    No.. I mean the middle class that cares about jobs and providing for their families more than they care about what bathroom a transgender has to use...

    If he wants to keep them, he's going to have to produce results for them, as they aren't "Trump supporters" they were "opposition to the political establishment"

    Considering how bad this country has fallen, there is PLENTY of results to be produced..

    But again, in 4 years 45 WILL BE the political establishment.

    If so, then the Establishment MIGHT become acceptable again..

    There is nothing wrong with an Establishment per se..

    The ESTABLISHMENT of the last 8 years was the problem...

  145. [145] 
    MHorton wrote:

    "Considering how bad this country has fallen, there is PLENTY of results to be produced.."

    If he can get Congress to do it. Which is a huge IF. Again, my contention is that unless he can score bipartisan legislation, he will be in trouble going forward.

    "If so, then the Establishment MIGHT become acceptable again..

    There is nothing wrong with an Establishment per se..

    The ESTABLISHMENT of the last 8 years was the problem..."

    In your personal opinion. Lots of us would point much further back; as a Republican, the problems started in the 90's with Newt's belief that stopping Clinton at all costs justified any action.

    Winning is not more important than doing the right thing, and the GOP forgot that back in the 90's, and never really seemed to recover it.

    The Democrats are not, and never have been, organized or homogenous to draw strong conclusions about; as FDR said, it's like herding cats.

    But clearly the Democrats didn't lose the entire middle class; if they had, 45 would have won the popular vote.

    The Dems held their middle class voters, and even picked some up in some states, but they lost too many voters in one region; the Midwest.

  146. [146] 
    michale wrote:

    If he can get Congress to do it. Which is a huge IF

    President Obama has proven that a POTUS can push a LOT of his agenda without Congress...

    In your personal opinion.

    Abso-tively and posi-loutly...

    But clearly the Democrats didn't lose the entire middle class; if they had, 45 would have won the popular vote.

    Not so..

    Only ONE state allowed NOT-45 to overtake President Trump in the vanity vote and it's the most liberal state in the country...

    Because of that fact, the Popular Vote in the 2016 election is even MORE meaningless than it normally is.

    California is mostly made up of the Democrat Party base by far...

    That's why I laugh my ass off at the talk of California secession...

    If California were to actually secede, there would NEVER be another Democrat majority or a Democrat POTUS...

  147. [147] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz- (132)-
    Let's hope you're wrong.
    Yes, the Dems can propose anything they want because they know it will not be enacted with the Repubs controlling the majority, if that is enviable.
    Unfortunately, it appears the Dems are going with your strategy to let Trump and the Repubs piss people off and offer the same line of crap that put us where we are now, counting on the we are not as bad as them line again.
    But that will not work in 2018 as it has in the past. Trump and Bernie have shown that people want something different and that it can be achieved.
    If the Democratic Party strategy works in 2018 it will not be a good thing because the Democratic Party is part of the problem.
    Only if Democrats change who controls their party by demanding small contribution candidates will gains by the Democratic Party in 2018 be a good thing.
    Those that are still arguing the lesser of two evil strategy just don't get it. That red herring has been sold for the forty years that I have been voting. If it was going to work it would have worked by now.

  148. [148] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well, another bad day for the fanboys - how long can they stand the embarrassment of openly supporting 45?

    Today's disasters (so far, 4pm PST):

    1. Trump’s pick to replace Michael Flynn as national security adviser turns down offer

    2. 45's 'unhinged' press conference: 'It was an airing of grievances. It was Festivus.' - Jake Tapper

    3. A new Pew poll disputes 45's "fine tuned machine" - only 39% approve: http://www.people-press.org/2017/02/16/in-first-month-views-of-trump-are-already-strongly-felt-deeply-polarized/

    If 45 wasn't such a horrible bigot I'd feel sorry for him - he is obviously delusional and one day soon he is going to melt down - it looked like he was starting to lose it today.

  149. [149] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    Clearly, my cynicism doesn't rise to the level of yours. And, that's a good thing.

  150. [150] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    It sounds like it's your way or the highway. Am I right about that?

  151. [151] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Those that are still arguing the lesser of two evil strategy just don't get it. That red herring has been sold for the forty years that I have been voting. If it was going to work it would have worked by now.

    For the record and your information, Don, that is not what I am arguing. Remember, I am not cynical to the extreme and I never will be.

  152. [152] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    I guess you are not arguing lesser of two evils because you don't think the Dems are evil. But it seems to be the Dems strategy.
    If the rank and file Dems can't recognize that their party establishment is the problem they will not get the Bernie, Trump and independents that they need. If the Repubs can't keep or get them they will find other alternatives. It won't matter whether the rank and file Dems believe their party is not evil while the party establishment tries to play the LEV card because too many people are catching on to that trick and they now believe they can create viable alternatives because the CMP establishments have shown they are not invincible.
    It's not my way or the highway. It's my evaluation of the current political situation and valuable advice for any Democrat to follow if they want the Democratic Party to remain relevant.

  153. [153] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @Don @Liz

    And this is why I say the Democrats are bad at politics. It's patently obvious that all they need to do are run actual Democrats and not "moderates", they have a shot of motivating their base.

    Instead they're letting the base drive them, but that's okay; Bernie woke up a lot of people, and 45's victory was sobering for others. So if they let their new base drive the narrative, then they should have a chance at getting turnout where they need it.

    It's entirely possible we'll see two new parties form as factions split off from the old parties. There are a lot of abandoned moderate Republicans out there, and the some Democrats are actively pushing against the "Bernie Wing" of the party.

    Why you would push back against young, energized voters (the most valuable voters of all, since someone who campaigns for your party in their 20's is almost certainly locked in for life) when the opposition party is teetering on the edge of splitting, I will never understand.

  154. [154] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    No, I don't think the Dems are evil.

    Of course, I don't think the other guys are evil, either. They're just terribly misguided, most of the time. Though, I don't think I'll ever forget how congressional Republicans behaved from Jan 20, 2009 through the global financial crisis when they put party way ahead of country and made a bad situation much, much worse than it needed to be.

    I'm not sure what exactly you mean when you say that the establishment is the problem.

    If you are saying that your two party system is, ah, rigged then you may have a point. But, that system isn't strong enough to prevent up-wing Democratic thinking or stop Democrats who want to move the country forward from acting and proposing real viable solutions to the problems facing the country.

    The establishment isn't the problem. Enlightened leadership and Democrats who have a clear vision for progressive change and the courage to carry it out can overcome the barriers that the establishment puts in the way.

  155. [155] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    MHorton,

    There is a lot to be said for moderation. :)

    It seems to me that talking about what the Democrats - or should I say, politicians, in general, of any stripe - need to do in terms of motivating "their base" is old, left/right thinking that get us nowhere, fast.

  156. [156] 
    MHorton wrote:

    @Liz

    Well, I don't think that's true. Any politician with a group/faction/party has a base that they're trying to both connect with and motivate to show up.

    The "left/right" issue is a result of two basic and opposed impulses within people; to rebel and to conform.

    The right sees value in conformity and order, the left sees value in rebellion and change.

    Where the problem happens is that they each forget the other is ALSO right.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with left/right tension; to me, that's the perfect government. We need progressives to dream, to think big; to see the world the way it should be, not the way it is.

    And we need conservatives to make sure we don't end up homeless in the process.

    Winning has become more important than doing what needs to be done, and that's the one and only problem that really stands before us. 45 is a walking example of the idea that you should win at all costs.

  157. [157] 
    MHorton wrote:

    It should also be noted that, by definition, "conservatives" as defined currently are doomed to fail.

    Because they want no progress at all, and you cannot stop progress. That's why you guide it.

  158. [158] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And we need conservatives to make sure we don't end up homeless in the process.

    That was a little joke, right?

  159. [159] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [156]

    Duly noted. :)

  160. [160] 
    michale wrote:

    3. A new Pew poll disputes 45's "fine tuned machine" - only 39% approve: http://www.people-press.org/2017/02/16/in-first-month-views-of-trump-are-already-strongly-felt-deeply-polarized/

    And ANOTHER poll says that President Trump is doing awesomely, that his Job Approval tops 55%... :D

    If you continue to use a SINGLE poll that "proves" you are right, that President Trump is doing horribly, I will continue to use a SINGLE poll that "proves" you wrong.. That "proves" that President Trump is awesome.. :D

  161. [161] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    The Dems may not be evil in the Exorcist definition, but in the context of the lesser of two evils voting argument they qualify as evil. Whether you say they are evil or not as bad as the Repubs, it is the same in the context of the strategy by the Big Money interests that control the Democratic Party (the establishment) to keep their pets in power by pretending to fight the good fight while waiting for the Repubs to self-destruct and then selling their not as bad pets as the only alternative in 2018.
    If the rank and file Dems do not fight back and take over their party it won't matter if they win in 2018 or 2020. It will do nothing to prevent another Trump (or worse) because that is what gave us Trump in the first place.
    As I have said before, they are playing the long game while telling their party faithful and the independent swing voters to play the short game.

  162. [162] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    MHorton-
    Thanks for joining in.
    While it may be possible for the Dems to win by motivating their base, it won't solve the problem.
    It needs to be approached the other way around.
    The base needs to motivate the party to provide Democratic candidates that do more than just the superficial attempts to advance the principles they espouse that are provided by the Big Money Democratic candidates.
    Only if they demand small contribution candidates and vote against the Big Money candidates will they be able to make their party worth voting for.
    This is unlikely, so it looks like you could be right about the possibility of alternatives. Let's hope so.

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]