I wasn’t joking and I wasn’t exaggerating. Trump is a totally stereotypical and conventional demagogue. His methods and his plans, domestically, are just like Hitler’s were, domestically in Germany. His speeches are, too - lots of obvious asshole-ism, lots of noise, and calculated to only appeal to stupid people. Hitler was clearly a nicer guy than Trump, but Hitler’s… ummm, his foreign policy was not as nuanced as Trump’s. You got to hand it to Trump on that one - no annexing Mexico, yet.
Senators appears to be the correct answer.
You think this is a problem unique to Trump? That HRC’s proposals would have been sailing through Congress because they were so bi-partisan? Just like Obama’s did?
:dubious: The problem in both cases is Republican extreme nuttery, not merely partisan politics. This isn’t a “both sides do it” equivalence.
Gotta admit it’s a cute argument, though: point to a bunch of Republican diehard obstructionists preventing governmental achievements on the one hand, and a Republican robber-baron administration trying to destroy governmental achievements on the other, and blame the resulting non-achievement on the nature of the executive rather than on the Republican nuttery. :rolleyes:
I’m curious if there’s more to this than a typical lib ranting. What, specifically, are the similarities you see?
I don’t claim claim any particular knowledge of Hitler’s speeches. Could you, perhaps, point me to the one that you think most closely resembles a typical Trump speech?
I think it’s a cute argument, blaming Congress when Obama’s the president and excusing Congress and blaming the President when Trump is in.
Obstructionism absolutely is a “both sides do it” equivalence.
When people say “both sides”, they don’t mean the executive branch vs. the legislative branch.
Okay, now do you have any indication that any of this is actually likely to happen at any point in the near future?
Bringing manufacturing jobs back is borderline impossible, short of turning to draconian protectionism or banning automation (and you’d better pray he doesn’t try that). These jobs are gone, and they aren’t coming back.
Getting a deal with North Korea… Okay, why do you think Trump can pull that off? What makes you think that one of the most incompetent diplomats we’ve ever seen grace the white house, whose pronouncements make Bush’s shoulder massage seem like tactful diplomacy, can make that work, when countless others have failed? This is wishful thinking, not realistic assessment.
And as for getting more like-minded politicians… Well, his party has a majority in both houses of congress and the supreme court, so I really am confused what you mean here. Do you mean like if republicans can get 75 votes in the senate and 9 seats on the supreme court, then maybe they can make enough of a coalition to get things done? :rolleyes:
It would be enough for some legislation. Like the Obamacare repeal, which could have passed in reconciliation. But even then, despite the fact that the Republican party has literally used “repeal and replace Obamacare” as their political rallying cry for more than half a decade, they couldn’t get it passed. Because it was, from start to finish, total bullshit.
…Seriously, it’s not just a matter of “Democrats will filibuster everything the republicans do”. The number of filibusters the dems have pushed in this congress is on track to be similar to the number republicans pushed under Obama, and nowhere near the record number in 2013-14. And most of those have to do with Trump’s appointments, which I have a really hard time faulting the democrats for - most of these people have absolutely no fucking reason to be in the positions they’re in (need we go over what’s wrong with Betsy DeVos or Ben Carson again?).
So what’s actually going on? Short answer: the republican majority can’t get its shit together, because they have no idea how to actually fucking govern! The democrats are not responsible for the first government shutdown under a unified government. And it’s not just me saying this - multiple republican congressmen have essentially said the same. Here’s one right here:
“It’s almost like we’re serving in the minority right now. We just simply don’t know how to govern.”
This was obvious to most of us for a while. Indeed, many republicans (I believe you and Bone are among them, but please correct me if I’m wrong) see that as a benefit, in large part because they don’t trust the government to do things. But for god’s sake, let’s not pretend that it’s anyone else’s fault when it turns out that the party that advertised its inability to govern loud and clear turns out to be chronically incapable of actually fucking governing. If you wanted a functional government, you shouldn’t have voted for the party that wants to drown the government in the bathtub.
Yeesh, now I remember why I’ve been spending less time here. Thinking about this kind of shit is just depressing. I’d rather just not. I’ve been looping a hypnotic file literally named “Mind Eraser” for a month now and I still can’t figure out how to be wrong enough to get into the republican headspace.
Oh, and if your case is “democrats are blocking the republican agenda”, please keep two things in mind.
First, the democrats got substantially more votes than the republicans for senate, and Clinton received far more votes than Trump. (The GOP did get more votes in the house, but they still got disproportionately many seats.) So any claim to a mandate is not just wrong but completely insane.
And secondly, the republican agenda is not exactly a long list of bipartisan talking points. Instead, you’ve got the appointment of Neil Gorsuch into a seat that rightfully should have been filled by an Obama appointee, the repeal of the most noteworthy legislation of the last administration, incredibly hardline immigration reform, a tax cut bill that most of the country hated despite the fact they were getting a tax cut (seriously this doesn’t fucking happen), the appointment of a long list of incompetent cronies to important positions, and more.
But all that’s pretty thoroughly irrelevant given what I said above.
Trump’s incredible ineffectiveness in getting his preferred legislation has little to do with the Senate – very little major legislation (historically little, IIRC) has gotten through the House, which only requires a simple majority. We can be thankful, at least, that not only is Trump a buffoon capable only of short-term thinking, but also the GOP House caucus is a nigh-ungovernable mess.
There were a number of bills and proposals from Republicans that were blocked once it was evident that Obama favored them.
There was at least one instance of the bill’s author voting against it.
When did that happen, and why?
Can you be more specific? *Which *Senators? And, again, why?
It’s even cuter blaming the other party for yours’ failures when your party has complete control.
Then it should be easy to point out a few of your favorite examples of what Democrats are obstructing, and why it’s out of sheer obstructionism.
Now: *Why *do you want government to fail, as you so obviously do, unless “My party good, your party bad” is an even higher principle for you? And why aren’t you out and proud about it, instead of calling it failure and blaming the other guys for it?
Do you understand what’s wrong with this talking point, or does someone need to explain it to you?
I’m on my phone now, so I’m not going to try to parse the above post and answer all your questions until I get to a proper keyboard, but please clarify this one point for me:
Where did I call it “failure”?
Obama is a “global thinker”, which is the kind of leader we need in the 21st century. With an increasingly overcrowded world, a steadily deteriorating environment, diminishing non-renewable resources, and numerous despotic leaders with the power to poison the earth, we must learn to live together as a global community. If we don’t, we will all probably die together.
Trump is a “tribal thinker”, which is exactly the kind of thinking that dominated 1950’s America. If you look at virtually every decision he makes, you can see that he doesn’t look at the long term international ramifications of what he is doing. This kind of thinking wasn’t a problem when there were far less people in a very big world with virtually no capability of impacting the planet’s environment via pollution or warfare. We can no longer afford “tribal thinking” in our leadership. We must evolve beyond that or face the consequences.
I’m avoiding providing examples/details because I was warned about “taking potshots” at political leaders outside of the Pit. Since I view virtually everything that man does in a negative light, I’m avoiding saying anything further.
Yeah, all they can pass with a simple majority is legislation that would decrease the deficit, legislation which would leave the deficit unchanged, and legislation that would increase the deficit but that they lie and say would decrease it.
So far as I know, there are no Presidents nor former Presidents among the membership of the SDMB, so that rule wouldn’t apply.
I’m curious about this. Do you have a cite?
You’re in favor of obstructing efforts to make it work. What do *you *call that?
We all look forward to your other answers. You won’t be forgotten about, trust us.
With relation to whether or not republicans have a popular mandate to pursue their legislative agenda? I dunno, maybe I’m using the term wrong, but I would think to claim a mandate from the general populace, not having lost the popular vote in the senate and the white house would be a pretty reasonable stumbling block. Maybe I’m misusing the term, but to my understanding, a mandate implies one of two things: having more than 50% of the popular vote, or having so utterly trounced the opposition that there is absolutely no denying who’s in charge i.e. Reagan in '80. It’s a way of saying, “public opinion is unambiguously behind this”. That is most absolutely not what happened in the 2016 election. The people of America spoke… but it didn’t matter because if you live in California or New York your vote is worth less.
…I mean, sure, if you strip the context of the discussion of whether republicans have a mandate from that quote, then there’s plenty wrong with it. But you wouldn’t do that, would you?