I just laughed out loud thinking about how this place would implode if DJT were to join the SDMB.
I’m sure he would be treated like any new joiner that starts posting crackpot ideas with no basis in reality.
Pretty sure DJT would implode first, as he always does.
I was warned. That’s cite enough for me. LOL
Would “Fucking Moron” be his account name? That would be EPIC.
I didn’t call it “failure” like you claimed. You dodged my question rather than answering that. I’ll take that as a tacit admission that you were just making shit up when you said I was “calling it failure” in post #52. This is a recurring problem for you: claiming people said something that they didn’t say. It’s REALLY hard to believe anything you say when you make shit up like that. I’d like to take this opportunity to encourage you to stop doing it.
Now, as for your other questions:
Sometime in the last few decades. I don’t have a precise date, as I see it as more of a long-running escalation in partisanship by both sides.
I suspect most of them have voted against cloture, or would if they were in the minority when something came up. I’m not going to take the time to go research every single senator and confirm which votes they cast against cloture, but I’m comfortable with my understanding that it’s pretty much all of them.
I don’t know how many times and how many ways it can be explained but a Senate majority is insufficient to unilaterally do whatever one party wants, at least so long as the cloture threshold is 60 votes.
I never claimed “it’s out of sheer obstructionism”. Both sides obstruct when they’re in the minority. I think they both do so with the belief that they’re protecting or advancing some higher principle or greater good.
I don’t want government to “fail”. I want it to advance conservative goals and principles. The second best thing it can do is nothing. The worst thing it can do is advance liberal goals. And there’s a vast distance separating these last two. I don’t call it “failure” when they do a little bit of the first, a lot of the second, and none of the third.
Seems a strange position to take. “Hey, there are a lot of people in poverty. Maybe the government can get off it’s lazy ass and do something about it?” “Nope, I’d rather they do nothing than advance liberal goals”
It doesn’t seem strange if I consider the liberal policy goals, taken broadly, to be harmful to the poor.
Obama and the Democrats made many efforts to work with Republicans even when the Democrats controlled Congress. The Republicans resolved from Day 1 to obstruct everything and anything Obama proposed or approved of, even (as mentioned above) when it involved shooting down things they themselves had proposed, and they overtly stated that they were doing so for partisan reasons.
The Democrats in Congress have made multiple efforts to work with Trump and the Republicans in Congress and have been shut out repeatedly, often at an unprecedented level, including Republican members of Congressional committees having secret meetings and not giving Democratic members access to committee materials or involvement in the decisionmaking processes. Trump has asked Democrats for proposals, then summarily shot them down when they brought him what he asked for, then claimed that they had never done so. Where Democrats have opposed Trump appointees it has been where they have been demonstrably unqualified (DeVos being the most obvious example), not for purely partisan reasons, and in the few instances qualified candidates have been put forward they have voted for them.
So that “cute argument” is actually a valid one, and your repeated assertions of equivalence are utter bullshit.
Do you consider government a “failure” when it advances liberal principles, but “not a failure” when it advances conservative principles?
Is this supported by any facts or just something you think is true because you’re comfortable believing it?
Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham say that they offered to build Trump’s wall in exchange for a DACA deal, and Trump rejected their proposal. That is the weirdest kind of congressional obstruction I can possibly imagine.
Imagine if a Republican and Democrat came to Obama with a single payer health insurance program tied to increases in defense spending (or something like that). I could only imagine that Obama would have taken that deal in an instant.
Fair enough. Without derailing this thread, could you pick one of the goals from this list and explain why you think it’s harmful to the poor?
C’mon, now. Even Trump understands you don’t build a wall to seal the illegals in.
I was composing a similar question but asking the reverse. I’m curious to know if there are any liberal principles that HD approves of. It’ll obviously be a much shorter list than those in your link that he likely disapproves of.
I don’t remember it that way. Do you recall who said “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won”? Here is one insider’s take on Obama’s “efforts”.
Could you highlight one or two examples for me? I’m having trouble thinking of any on my own. What do you think some of the best examples of this have been?
Sure.
What would the results of such a policy be? I suspect we could have a robust debate about it, but here is one such analysis:
Provided earlier:
I didn’t. I told you what I meant.
Moi? Mais non.
January 20, 1993, as you know. Now why was that, to repeat a question you’re dodging?
IOW, no, both sides don’t do it. :dubious:
Which applies only when filibusters are invoked, as you also know. Now when did that become “normal”? Hint: See above.
You offered nothing else. So what is it, do you think? Oh, wait, you have to imagine it happening, so of course you have to imagine motivations for it too.
Would that principle apply to, for instance, a Republican-proposed system for affordable health care insurance?
[Moderating]
Jasmine, your warning was not for political potshots “outside of the Pit”. It was for political potshots “in General Questions”. Political potshots are not allowed in GQ, but they are allowed here in Great Debates (as well as Elections, the BBQ Pit, and, to a degree, IMHO). In fact, there would be very little left of GD or IMHO if we removed all of the political potshots.
The main difference between the Pit and other forums is that, in all other forums, insults against other posters are prohibited, but in the Pit, they’re allowed. Which doesn’t matter when we’re talking about politicians.
If you have any further questions about these distinctions, start a thread in ATMB.