Current Topics
Charolottesville
by NW Ponderer
Today at 03:40 AM
USC mascot under scrutiny for having name similar to Robert E. Lee's horse
by pondering_it_all
Today at 01:52 AM
Cultural iconography
by pondering_it_all
Today at 01:28 AM
Trump Forum
by rporter314
08/18/17 10:17 PM
Hyde: Is Stanton the legit HR king if he hits 62? Even he wonders | Commentary
by Golem
08/18/17 07:00 PM
Trump resurrects tall tale about General Pershing and Muslims after Barcelona te
by jgw
08/18/17 06:51 PM
OJ Simpson Pop-Up Museum To Open In Chinatown
by Golem
08/18/17 04:09 PM
Round Table for August 2017
by pdx rick
08/18/17 08:32 AM
CONFIRMED: 2016 was Earth's hottest year in the record books
by pondering_it_all
08/18/17 01:40 AM
24 Novels That Are Crying Out To Be Turned Into A TV Series
by matthew
08/17/17 11:39 PM
Standing Ovations for Triumphant Dennis Prager, Conducting at Disney Hall
by Golem
08/17/17 06:06 PM
The Passing Parade: Obituaries: 2017
by Golem
08/17/17 02:00 AM
Anonymous declares war on the alt-right in new video
by pondering_it_all
08/16/17 11:10 PM
STLV17: Brannon Braga On How Kirk Should Have Died, ‘Star Trek: Enterprise’ Regr
by Golem
08/16/17 03:16 PM
Nazism versus Communism
by Jeffery J. Haas
08/15/17 05:05 AM
Forum Stats
6241 Members
57 Forums
16013 Topics
276179 Posts

Max Online: 282 @ 05/29/08 05:08 AM
Google Adsense
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#300469 - 04/06/17 07:18 PM Re: Sanity [Re: jgw]
pdx rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 40367
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: jgw
The Republicans did this very publicly and it was shown all over the place. They did not, for instance, allow Obama to try and fix ACA.


Nor did "they" allow a Senate up-or-down vote on Obama's last SCOTUS nominee.
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#300639 - 04/12/17 05:28 PM Re: Sanity [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1634
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
It dawns on me that language, and attitude, play large parts in the apparent inability of politicians to gain consensus on ANYTHING. Consensus itself is interesting. I think it means that two sides reach consensus by speaking to each other and arriving at a point wherein both sides can agree on something they both agree needs attention. What does not help are words like; fight, win, lose, argument, beat, battle, etc. When any politician uses words, like these, he/she is demonstrating their unwillingness to discuss with the possibility of consensus. Words like these are, as far as I am concerned, demonstrating the inability and/or unwillingness, to even try to find consensus. So, when you hear a politician, on any side, start using these kinds of words that politician is, basically, declaring that they are not so much unable to reach consensus but that they are willing to even try. In other words elected who use that kind of language are demonstrating their conscious effort to no do their damned jobs.

Another thing that bothers me is congress itself. There are a total of 535 Members of Congress. 100 serve in the U.S. Senate and 435 serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. There are 247 Republicans in the house and 54 Republicans in the Senate. In the senate the Democrats have 44 seats and independents have 2 seats. In the house the Democrats have 193 seats in the house. Apparently the Freedom Caucus is made up of 36 Republicans and also seems to be at odds over everything and tend to approve nothing. The Freedom Caucus also closely hews to the Gingrich rule of never giving an inch an ANYTHING. This means that approximately 15% of the Republicans, basically, run the majority party of the house.

I just do not get it. If the Republicans make an argument that they are there to represent those in their districts, and they can't function because of a 15% faction that just wants gov to stop, and cannot seem to bring themselves to make up the difference by reaching some sort of consensus with the Democratics then the Republicans of the house do not represent their constituents but something else (greed, politics, party, fear, ignorance or incapacity). I think its just that simple. The same holds with the Democrats. They also have their group of members using the aforementioned words of legislative failure. I also find it interesting that several have now publicly stated that they cannot wait to have the worm turn so that they will be in control to 'do things'. Such statements define, basically, their unwillingness to also do whatever it takes to reach any kind of consensus.

So, we have two groups of politicians seemingly determined to never reach consensus with the other side which means, again basically, that they are simply unwilling to do the job they were elected to do (with the exception of Freedom Caucus members who apparently were elected to do nothing). I would suggest that since both sides have decided not to do the jobs they were elected to do then what, exactly, are they doing other than building up huge piles of money so that they can keep the jobs they do not do. The interesting thing in all of this is that, apparently, this is also OK with those that continue to vote them into office.

Into this mix throw Mr. Trump. There are currently news reports on what Trump has not done and that he has not passed any legislation. I would point out that is true but, then, the congress has not seen fit to pass anything for him to sign. As far as I can tell there are no signs of any legislation getting passed. We are coming up to yet another shutdown and that will be a miracle if they manage to not have a shutdown. Think about it, neither side will deal with the other, on the Republican side 15% seem unwilling to deal with anybody at all, on either side.

So the next time you hear a politician expound on how he/she is willing to work with the other side I would take that with a grain of sand as the facts seem to bely the probability. Again, I think we should all be wondering what, exactly, our congress is actually doing. I know, one thing they are doing is fighting (something), winning (something) and losing (something) but that, really, has little or nothing to do with consensus and running the nation. I could ask the same question, again, and again - there seems to be many possibilities; We have, for instance, codified personal greed by calling the income "contributions" but, I expect, there is more to this one than meets the eye.

I should also mention that my facts have been taken directly from the net and are, hopefully, correct. I also admit to making some claims with no facts at all (the greed thing, for instance. All I can say in my defense is; "sorry......"



Edited by jgw (04/12/17 05:30 PM)

Top
#300645 - 04/12/17 07:18 PM Re: Sanity [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 6837
Loc: North San Diego County
I see several problems with your post. First of all $174,000 per year is not a huge pile of cash, at least for most of these people. It's more than I ever made, but I was not a lawyer or doctor. Very few of these guys are in it for the money. There are other things they could be doing that would make a lot more.

Second, the Democrats have no equivalent of the Hasturd rule or Newt's "team loyalty". If the Republicans propose something they like, they will probably vote for it. Of course, if Democrats will vote for something then most of the Party-obsessed Republicans will vote against it. One of them actually sponsored a bill and then voted against it because it got too many Democratic votes!

So saying the parties are both doing this is incorrect. The Freedom Caucus is a Black Hole, but anytime moderate Republicans want to pass something all they have to do is make it palatable on the issues to Democrats, and consensus will happen.

Third, even if the Freedom Caucus votes against something, other Republicans still have 201 votes to Democrats 193. They can still pass bills if they ignore the Freedom Caucus. They just need to dump all this "unified Party" nonsense.

Top
#300653 - 04/12/17 09:23 PM Re: Sanity [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1634
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
I agree with most of what you say. However, I have been watching several TV interviews of Dems. They never fail to mention something like; "When we win we will ..........." (basically treat the Republicans just like they are being treated. My hope is that can be set aside although there is absolutely no reason to assume the Republicans would take part if the Dems are in charge. They certainly were no help when Obama held the floor.

One of the things that bothers me is that I have noticed the Republicans putting up general ads pointing out how everything is the fault of the Dems. I have not seen one Dem at about anything and, I think, they have a LOT they could be telling the electorate?

Then there are the Republicans who sound as if they are willing to work with anybody and reach consensus but that never seems to happen. One can only wonder if they are real or there are other problems. The republicans, even before the tea party and freedom caucus, marched in lockstep and, apparently, nobody ever got out of step. Now, however, things have changed and they seem to be a war with one another. Still, can 15% of them stop the whole show without support from their majority? Perhaps its like Muslim Terrorists. They actually terrorize their mullahs, who do not always speak out, for fear of their wrath. Islam is the only religion I know of that does not speak out LOUDLY when suicide becomes a religious option. Christians, of course, did that during the crusades but got over it. Perhaps its time we just let Islam have at it and get over it too?

Top
#300656 - 04/13/17 12:01 AM Re: Sanity [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 6837
Loc: North San Diego County
I think the Congressional Democrats just have thing about ACA, what with it being highly compromised to fit Republican needs, zero Republican votes for it even though it had no public option, 50+ House votes to kill it, etc. Now Republicans can go screw themselves if they think Democrats are going to vote for some ridiculous tax giveaway to the rich posing as an ACA replacement.

Create a reasonable infrastructure bill and some will vote for it. Ask Congress for permission to hit Assad, and almost all of them will vote for it.

Top
#300670 - 04/13/17 03:52 PM Re: Sanity [Re: jgw]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 15373
There is a HUGE opportunity for the Democrats if they can see their way to doing it. They need a general PR campaign demonstrating they are the party of reason, compromise, and getting things done. Give examples, make proposals. E.g.,
Quote:
"Health care reform was a goal of both parties for decades. We got it started, but we need your support to finish it. We have a plan to ensure that every American has access to affordable health care, in every County and community in America. We're in this together, and we can achieve this together. It's what Americans have always done. That's why we're the United States of America."
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#300672 - 04/13/17 04:43 PM Re: Sanity [Re: jgw]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6166
Loc: Highlands, Tx
I suspect the general public does not understand nor care to understand the ideological reasons consrvatives do not want government involved in anything .... Limbaugh said many times if the message to spoken correctly everyone will become conservatives .... the problem is their message is not convincing .... the pragmatic approach based on a consensus of citizens is we need a solution and it does not matter if government provides it or if the free market becomes sentient and gets a conscience

I suspect it is far easily to sell a non-ideological solution to most Americans
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#300673 - 04/13/17 05:50 PM Re: Sanity [Re: rporter314]
pondering_it_all Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 6837
Loc: North San Diego County
Quote:
everyone will become conservatives


People are usually complex, with many competing thoughts. Almost everybody except for sociopaths has conservative impulses and liberal impulses at times. Maybe even at the same time, if they are unusually thoughtful. This why some folks can say "Government is the problem." and "Keep your hands off my Social Security." in the same paragraph.

The best counter to Rush's attempt to appeal to people's conservative impulses is to ask them if they like Social Security, Medicare, the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, and now ACA. The fact is that all of those things are extremely popular, even with registered Republicans.

Top
#300675 - 04/13/17 07:44 PM Re: Sanity [Re: jgw]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6166
Loc: Highlands, Tx
I think you understated the ACA .... just a few years ago not a single conservative much less any Republican voted FOR ACA but now the moderates are all for some kind of replacement ... we have moved quite a way in a short period of time

The message is clear .... people want the government to provide a solution when the free market fails to stumble into one

Our government was formed in part to provide services for its citizenry not to simply ignore them
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#300676 - 04/13/17 07:52 PM Re: Sanity [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1634
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
it would seem that we are forgetting something in all of this. The question; "Does our government function properly", rather than the plain "does our government function" is pertinent. Part of that question is whether there are things that there is likely common ground to be discussed. For instance; the fact that this is the only industrialized nation that allows drug companies to advertise and also actually has a law that removes government's ability to negotiate prices with drug companies. Another would be the connections between the FDA and the drug industry. Another might be whether our laws concerning political contributions is right or ethical. Another might be the inability to deal with guns in any truly rational way. This list is long, and when there is a very long list of things that should be taken care of, and are possibly due to the elected seemingly being persuaded to favour corporations over individual citizens, then, I think, its logical to assume our government is not functioning as well as it might.

Top
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 39 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Albertpkr, kechua, burkha, bikrami, inekifoh
6241 Registered Users
A2