# Clothahump, and others... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 2, 2016, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465 "2016-11-02T18:35:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/381 "2016-11-11T16:08:14Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m curious if Clothahump will commit to the following premise: > > If the Trump administration lasts four years and the national debt increases by 50%, will he consider that a “disaster” ? > Hah, just kidding, I’m only actually curious to see if he either ignores the idea or tries to spin it in some way. Why would I spin it in any way? It would be a disaster. Quite possibly even worse that what Obama did, because it would compound Obama’s fuckups. However, I don’t expect that to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/382 "2016-11-11T16:12:17Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Why would I spin it in any way? It would be a disaster. Quite possibly even worse that what Obama did, because it would compound Obama’s fuckups. > > However, I don’t expect that to happen. Because you’re a stupid child and you live in a fantasy world. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/383 "2016-11-11T16:20:27Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Why would I spin it in any way? It would be a disaster. Quite possibly even worse that what Obama did, because it would compound Obama’s fuckups. > > However, I don’t expect that to happen. Every expert who’s evaluated Trump’s tax plan has said it would increase the debt considerably, far more than under Clinton’s plan. And a simple look at history shows that Republicans are by far the less fiscally responsible party. Can you explain why you don’t think that will happen? Will Trump not enact his tax plan? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/384 "2016-11-11T17:05:10Z")
Some history of the bipartisan healthcare reform negotiations from NPR/PBS. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/etc/cron.html](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/etc/cron.html) > **[What The 'Gang Of Six' Wants From Health Care Bill](https://www.npr.org/2009/09/09/112222617/what-the-gang-of-six-wants-from-health-care-bill)** > > A small group of key senators was once looked at as the key to passing a bipartisan health care bill in the Senate. But so far, they have no compromise after months of negotiations — and plenty of Senate Democrats peeved at the influence ceded to the... Also worth looking at the [Whitehouse.gov](http://Whitehouse.gov) description of “Republican ideas” in the ACA. Includes things like dependent coverage to age 26 (I guess Republicans can take credit for that?) and some other minor details, but not anything major in comparison to the scope of the Act. [https://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas](https://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/385 "2016-11-11T17:08:12Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Malicious intent is not required in her case. Stupidity fits the bill. Let’s look at Comey’s statement again (emphasis mine): > > Comey later points out that she committed 110 felonies: > > She’s a felon. Deal with it. Then about 20% or more of active duty and civilian military workers are felons, since the kind of mishandling she did is unbelievably common. In my 15 years experience I’ve seen it hundreds of times. I’ve said this over and over again and you’ve totally ignored it. I would guess that it’s because you’re afraid to address an actual veteran with actual experience working with classified material. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/386 "2016-11-11T18:03:01Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The Gang of Six did not have the full support of the Democratic leadership in Congress. It was just a small group of moderate senators in both parties hoping to come up with a middle way. The Democrats had an iron grip on the presidency and both houses of government at the time, and unless the Democrats as a whole were satisfied with the results, nothing the Gang of Six came up with was going to pass. > > The positive about the Gang of Six, from the perspective of the Democrats at that time, was that if you could get support from a few of the most liberal members of the Republican Party, such that you could claim bipartisan support without sacrificing anything of real significance, then it would be worthwhile. But not more than that, and even at that, there was no guarantee that anything the Gang of Six came up with would eventually be supported by the Democratic Leadership once the progressive wing of the party had their say. It was an attempt at compromise. Republicans walked away. Crying that their recommendations weren’t going to be taking 100% at face value and used with no modifications is moving the goalposts. Democrats had the presidency, the House, and a supermajority in the Senate. They didn’t NEED to do anything with the Republicans. They still did, and those Republicans showed their true colors, yet again. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/387 "2016-11-11T18:28:30Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > It was an attempt at compromise. Republicans walked away. Crying that their recommendations weren’t going to be taking 100% at face value and used with no modifications is moving the goalposts. Democrats had the presidency, the House, and a supermajority in the Senate. They didn’t NEED to do anything with the Republicans. They still did, and those Republicans showed their true colors, yet again. I agree with your fourth and fifth sentences. The Democrats did not need to compromise with the Republicans. For this reason, it was politically impossible for them to offer meaningful compromises with the Republicans, because their left wing wouldn’t allow it. There might have been a few Democrats who would have gone for that, but not enough - the overall consensus was that it’s better to get something closer to what the Democrats want than to make significant compromises in the name of bipartisanship. So that’s what happened. That said, there’s no great shame in that. It’s likely the Republicans would have done something similar had they been in the same position. (Though IMO the Republicans tend to be more timid than the Democrats.) But denying the facts is revisionism. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/388 "2016-11-11T20:02:20Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Then about 20% or more of active duty and civilian military workers are felons, since the kind of mishandling she did is unbelievably common. In my 15 years experience I’ve seen it hundreds of times. > > I’ve said this over and over again and you’ve totally ignored it. I would guess that it’s because you’re afraid to address an actual veteran with actual experience working with classified material. While my stay was shorter, I’m also a veteran with actual experience working with classified material (USAF Cryptologic Linguist), and I agree with **iiandyiiii** and second his statements. Given the election results, Secretary Clinton is obviously not as all-powerful as the right has made her out to be. After ~3 decades of trying to pin a crime on her…any crime…I’m forced to believe either: - She is not a felon, or - She is a felon and those hell-bent on convicting her are such clueless morons that they should not be in charge of authoring, reviewing, and passing legislation. Anyone who is so stupid to believe that one party has that much more corrupt clout over the other party, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. That goes both ways. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2016, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/389 "2016-11-11T22:30:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Then about 20% or more of active duty and civilian military workers are felons, since the kind of mishandling she did is unbelievably common. In my 15 years experience I’ve seen it hundreds of times. > > I’ve said this over and over again and you’ve totally ignored it. I would guess that it’s because you’re afraid to address an actual veteran with actual experience working with classified material. Give **Clothy** a break. He has two brain cells. And we have footage of them hard at [work](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NPzLBSBzPI). ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/390 "2016-11-12T00:00:03Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > Give **Clothy** a break. He has two brain cells. Ah, he’s pregnant. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/391 "2016-11-12T01:15:52Z")
> [@HeweyLogan](#): > > It’s more than you’ve put up. Except your word, which as Fotheringay-Phipps is pointing out, is all you apparently need to prove your point. You are the one with the positive assertion that the Democrats never wanted to work with the Republicans. You continue to provide “evidence” that does not support your contention, typically relying on reports of events that began long after the Republicans had already refused to cooperate. It is not incumbent on me to track down a ton of evidence for my position when I need only point out the failures of your “evidence.” > [@HeweyLogan](#): > > - To read the article without the paywall, here’s a Google link with the article the second down from the top [he truth is that Democrats never had any intention of working with Republicans, except to pick off two or three Senators and calling it "bipartisanshi - Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?q=he+truth+is+that+Democrats+never+had+any+intention+of+working+with+Republicans%2C+except+to+pick+off+two+or+three+Senators+and+calling+it+%22bipartisanshi&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=The+truth+is+that+Democrats+never+had+any+intention+of+working+with+) It is still a blog/Op=Ed piece by an opponent of Obama written long after the events took place. As to your list of Google hits: The first is your Op-Ed piece, using a retro-active review re-writing history. The second is an extract from a book that simply quotes a portion of your Op-Ed piece. The third is calendar demonstrating that the Democrats never had the super majority later ascribed to them by Republicans claiming that the Democrats could have done whatever they wanted and failed to do so. The fourth is an Op-Ed piece that has no relevance to the current discussion. The fifth is this thread. The sixth is another irrelevant Op-Ed piece, this time noting the way in which the Republicans chose to obstruct any effort Obama made, (a point that is irrelevant to this discussion and an argument I have not made in this thread–not even quoting McConnell’s statement that the Republican’s first priority was to prevent Obama from accomplishing anything). At that point, I gave up looking for evidence for your claim, since it clearly lacks factual support. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/392 "2016-11-12T05:41:42Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Why would I spin it in any way? It would be a disaster. Quite possibly even worse that what Obama did, because it would compound Obama’s fuckups. > > However, I don’t expect that to happen. Oooh, acknowledgement… now for the follow-up question: Was it a disaster when Reagan and Bush43 doubled the national debt in their 8 years? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/393 "2016-11-12T08:16:33Z")
Did Reagan double the debt? Looks to me like he was closer to tripling it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/394 "2016-11-12T08:17:50Z")
Ssshhh!! Don’t confuse him, his attention span is limited! ---
**Author:** ![HeweyLogan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heweylogan/32/547_2.png) [@HeweyLogan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeweyLogan)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/395 "2016-11-12T17:10:13Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > As to your list of Google hits: > The first is your Op-Ed piece, using a retro-active review re-writing history. > The second is an extract from a book that simply quotes a portion of your Op-Ed piece. > The third is calendar demonstrating that the Democrats never had the super majority later ascribed to them by Republicans claiming that the Democrats could have done whatever they wanted and failed to do so. > The fourth is an Op-Ed piece that has no relevance to the current discussion. > The fifth is this thread. > The sixth is another irrelevant Op-Ed piece, this time noting the way in which the Republicans chose to obstruct any effort Obama made, (a point that is irrelevant to this discussion and an argument I have not made in this thread–not even quoting McConnell’s statement that the Republican’s first priority was to prevent Obama from accomplishing anything). Why you were looking at those other search results I can’t even begin to explain. I linked to the search results so you and whoever else wanted to could read the full WSJ piece I linked to earlier without having to log in/join. You summarily dismiss it and anything it references. > [@tomndebb](#): > > At that point, I gave up looking for evidence for your claim, since it clearly lacks factual support. Whereas as yours is chock of evidence. If your word is evidence. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2016, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/396 "2016-11-12T22:40:03Z")
> [@HeweyLogan](#): > > Why you were looking at those other search results I can’t even begin to explain. I linked to the search results so you and whoever else wanted to could read the full WSJ piece I linked to earlier without having to log in/join. > > You summarily dismiss it and anything it references. [QUOTE=that WSJ article] … Al Franken stole a recount from hapless Norm Coleman … [/QUOTE] Yeah, quite a balanced source you got there. As **tomndebb** said, op-ed piece. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2016, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/397 "2016-11-13T00:09:30Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > Give **Clothy** a break. He has two brain cells. And we have footage of them hard at [work](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NPzLBSBzPI). Fuck off. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2016, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/398 "2016-11-13T00:10:44Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Ah, he’s pregnant. Fuck off. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2016, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/399 "2016-11-13T00:42:26Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Fuck off. … Says the doddering old senile fool. This is now pretty much the only thing Clothy says that makes any sense anymore. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2016, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465/400 "2016-11-13T00:51:12Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > … Says the doddering old senile fool. This is now pretty much the only thing Clothy says that makes any sense anymore. The reason he’s pissed is his previous world was destroyed in a catastrophe that he tried to prevent. He needed the services of an engineer, something that did not exist in his world. He cast a spell, searching other planes of existence for an engineer. Unfortunately, he reeled in a janitor (whose job title was "Sanitation Engineer). Lacking the strength to cast again, he barely escaped to our world where he lives out his life consumed in bitterness. And that’s why he hates “political correctness”. P.S. The janitor, who was an aspiring rock singer, died. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clothahump-and-others/770465.md?page=21)