Displaying 1 - 10 of 4631 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • May 16, 2019 09:05 AM
    Last: 8d
    Dutch Wrote: Right now I have the impression the Dem's have thrown in the towel; nothing achieved until now: No unredacted Mueller report, no "tax returns", nothing on the subpoena's, nothing on anything they want. Yes, people that is what you get if there are no decent laws here; total dictatorship is around the corner. Pelosi has already given up and just awaits the election results; and claims Trump will self destroy; however I've not seen anything which leads to it.

    I think your frustration has more to do with many Democrats wholly unrealistic expectations after retaking the House than anything else. I fear that many liberals convinced themselves that retaking the House meant a new era of liberal lawmaking was imminent when the reality is far messier.

    Speaker Pelosi's biggest sticks are the power of the purse and the power to investigate the Trump Administration. She can leverage her power of the purse (refuse to sign off on a budget bill/withhold funding from certain departments) to force the Administration to cooperate with their investigations, but if you're waiting for her to waive a magic wand and enact every piece of progressive legislation into law then you're going to be sorely disappointed.

    That's not how things work in our system no matter how frustrated it makes you.

  • May 15, 2019 01:20 AM
    Last: 9d
    wwjd Wrote: Question: How do you think this would play out if Trump refused to hand over the presidency to someone who has been legitimately elected?

    Nothing surprises me anymore, so I wouldn't be shocked if Donald tries to challenge the election results if he loses. If he loses in a landslide then I don't think he'll have much of a leg to stand on, but if it's a close election then it's anyone's guess what will happen. It's truly scary to think about, but it is certainly something everyone needs to be prepared for.

    All we can hope for is that all those who are charged with ensuring a peaceful transition of power will choose country over party.

  • May 10, 2019 12:21 PM
    Last: 15d

    I actually have mixed feelings on nationwide injunctions. It's hypocritical, but I like them when it benefits Democrats and I don't like them when it doesn't. Unfortunately, that isn't a proper way to govern.

    If I were to be honest, I'm fine with doing away with the process of allowing one District Court judge to hand down nationwide injunctions that affect people way outside of their limited jurisdiction. It breeds "judge shopping" and only exasperates the widening skepticism among the population that our courts are rigged.

    It also would benefit Democrats even when we're not in power because fringe far right-wing judges would no longer be able to unilaterally declare nationwide mandates or injunctions. Their rulings would only effect the very limited number of people residing in the district they reside pending the appeal process.

  • Apr 09, 2019 04:10 AM
    Last: 15d
    Dutch Wrote: Sorry Schmidt, it is going to hell! ask all the preachers:-P.

    What does "going to hell" even mean if you're an atheist?

    Are we going through a tumultuous time in the country? Sure. But we've gone through many tumultuous times before and will go through more in the future.

    Would you say we're better or worse off than the 1960's when dozens and dozens of race riots brought large swaths of major cities on the precipice urban warfare? Or are we better or worse off than the various labor riots that also brought about open warfare on many city streets? And don't even get me started on the lead up to, and the fighting of, the Civil War.

    Preachers have been predicting the end of the world since The Book of Revelation was published and every one of them was wrong.

  • May 03, 2019 11:10 PM
    Last: 18d

    My point was that there is no "right" strategy in the lead up to the primaries because no primary votes have been cast and the only thing we're relying on is what we see on 24 hour "news" channels.

    There's a couple dozen candidates all running on a platform they think is the right one. Democrats in the various states will then begin choosing which candidate they like the best when the first primaries begin in early 2020. Until then it's just a reality TV contest that will drive you crazy if you spend too much time worrying about it.

  • May 03, 2019 11:10 PM
    Last: 18d

    The strategy is really quite simple - vote for your preferred candidate in the primary and then fight light hell for whoever the candidate winds up being in the general.

    I loathe Bernie with every fiber of my being, but if he's the general election nominee then I'll go knock on doors for him as enthusiastically as I would have if Biden, Booker, or Harris were the nominee.

  • May 03, 2019 11:10 PM
    Last: 18d

    Getting rid of Donald is my only issue. Policy proposals come in a far distant second.

    I just hope we don’t become our own worst enemies a second election in a row.

  • Apr 30, 2019 02:34 PM
    Last: 21d

    When I think of infrastructure projects I think of bridges, roads, dams, and other public projects, not opera houses.

    The sheer scale of critically needed infrastructure projects in America is mind boggling and is only getting worse with every passing day. Take the city of Portland. There are 12 bridges connecting the east and west sides of the city and all but one (a brand new pedestrian and mass-tran only bridge) are in various stages of disrepair. Current estimates suggest it would cost $10 billion to repair/rebuild all the bridges in this city alone. And that's just our bridges. Don't even get me started on my opinions of the city planners who built the highway system feeding into and out of the city.

    Zoom out and pick any other major city and you're going to see the same exact issues to varying degrees. We need a moonshot type program to rebuild our nations infrastructure for the 21st Century, but right now we're so stuck in our political crisis that it's basically impossible to get anything done at the national level.

    Speaker Pelosi, Leader Schumer, and Donald just agreed to investing $2 trillion in critical infrastructure projects, which is great, but, and it's a pretty big but, the two sides are in different universes when it comes to where that $2 trillion is going to come from. That pesky little detail all but guarantees that absolutely nothing is going to get done anytime soon.

  • Apr 22, 2019 10:39 AM
    Last: 27d
    Dutch Wrote: Yes all you guys; the title of this thread was: "How this all could end up in disaster" Sure you all "proved" it:-P

    I think it’s quite relevant to talk about Bernie or busters potentially fucking everything up yet again, especially since they still haven’t accepted any responsibility for overruling the will of the American people in 2016.

    It’s their way or the highway and I have zero doubt they would choose the highway once again if their dear leader isn’t anointed king of America.

  • Apr 22, 2019 10:39 AM
    Last: 27d
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Do you even know what Bernie or busters is?? I remember you telling me that you knew Trump couldn't win because you researched it. I'll have to assume based on your research record you are just guessing . Research this and then you can really worry that your conservative principles are faltering. Bradley effect.

    We all know what assuming does, Chet...

    Sanders -> Trump voters
    WI: 51k
    MI: 47k
    PA: 116k

    Trump win margin…
    WI: 22k
    MI: 10k
    PA: 44k

    WI: 9% of Sanders voters voted for Trump.

    MI: 8% of Sanders voters voted for Trump.

    PA: 16% of Sanders voters voted for Trump.


    Would you like any further evidence or will this suffice? I encourage you to think twice before accusing me of not being able to back up my statements of fact.

    I also encourage you to not put words in my mouth again. I never once said Trump couldn't win because "I researched it." Get over yourself, Chet. Your shit stinks just like everyone else's.