PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on October 17, 2019, 04:15:55 PM
-
Andrew Wilkow brought this up, and it does make one think.
Could it be Mitt Romney is making backroom deals with Pelosi and Company? Notice Mitt is on the attack and everyday sounds more and more like a democrat.
Could it be, just possible, that Mitt would be the "acceptable" republican to replace Trump if the dims could impeach and remove both Trump and Pence?
-
Andrew Wilkow brought this up, and it does make one think.
Could it be Mitt Romney is making backroom deals with Pelosi and Company? Notice Mitt is on the attack and everyday sounds more and more like a democrat.
Could it be, just possible, that Mitt would be the "acceptable" republican to replace Trump if the dims could impeach and remove both Trump and Pence?
Well, he wouldn't be acceptable to me.
-
Well, he wouldn't be acceptable to me.
He would be to the dims. That's all that matters.
And the establishment types would love him.
-
Romney should change parties, but he couldn't get reelected in Utah, so unfortunately he won't. I guess he will be happy just being John McCain 2.0. He's a sell out Globalist that when he had Obama on the ropes after the first debate, turtled up because he was told to. Now, he may regret it and wants to make another splash, and make an eventual run. I will never vote for him again.
-
Romney should change parties, but he couldn't get reelected in Utah, so unfortunately he won't. I guess he will be happy just being John McCain 2.0. He's a sell out Globalist that when he had Obama on the ropes after the first debate, turtled up because he was told to. Now, he may regret it and wants to make another splash, and make an eventual run. I will never vote for him again.
If it was Romney vs Warren/Sanders/Clinton/Michelle?
-
Those of us who understand the constitution know that the Speaker of the House of Representatives becomes the President if the POTUS and VPOTUS are removed or die before a VPOTUS can be placed upon the removal of the POTUS.
Romney is butt hurt about not getting a job in the administration.
I voted for Romney, the SOB. He needs to STFU.
-
SMDH.
-
Those of us who understand the constitution know that the Speaker of the House of Representatives becomes the President if the POTUS and VPOTUS are removed or die before a VPOTUS can be placed upon the removal of the POTUS.
Romney is butt hurt about not getting a job in the administration.
I voted for Romney, the SOB. He needs to STFU.
Here's the scenario:
Pence is removed first, which means the President must select a replacement and that replacement must be approved by the senate by a super majority. If the President doesn't pick someone "suitable", the dems block the nominee. Romney would be "suitable"
Then Trump is tried and removed, and..............President Romney!
-
Here's the scenario:
Pence is removed first, which means the President must select a replacement and that replacement must be approved by the senate by a super majority. If the President doesn't pick someone "suitable", the dems block the nominee. Romney would be "suitable"
Then Trump is tried and removed, and..............President Romney!
That's quite a stretch. I haven't heard the first rumor about removing Pence.
Here is my scenario if Trump is removed.
Pence will finish his term as Pres, plus two more and the Dems won't have a chance at the WH till 2028. I s'pect I will be dead by then.
-
That's quite a stretch. I haven't heard the first rumor about removing Pence.
Here is my scenario if Trump is removed.
Pence will finish his term as Pres, plus two more and the Dems won't have a chance at the WH till 2028. I s'pect I will be dead by then.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/06/msnbcs_jill_wine-banks_how_to_impeach_mike_pence_and_donald_trump_so_nancy_pelosi_becomes_president.html
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/pence-impeachment
https://time.com/5692947/mike-pence-impeachment/
https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/impeach-trump-and-pence
https://www.elitedaily.com/p/can-a-vice-president-be-impeached-heres-how-mike-pence-could-be-involved-19192894
-
He's a sell out Globalist that when he had Obama on the ropes after the first debate, turtled up because he was told to.
?
-
?
His reversal was so blatant I believe whomever runs him told him it was Obama's turn.
-
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/06/msnbcs_jill_wine-banks_how_to_impeach_mike_pence_and_donald_trump_so_nancy_pelosi_becomes_president.html
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/pence-impeachment
https://time.com/5692947/mike-pence-impeachment/
https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/impeach-trump-and-pence
https://www.elitedaily.com/p/can-a-vice-president-be-impeached-heres-how-mike-pence-could-be-involved-19192894
Those links have more holes than the movie 'Holes'.
-
Here's the scenario:
Pence is removed first, which means the President must select a replacement and that replacement must be approved by the senate by a super majority. If the President doesn't pick someone "suitable", the dems block the nominee. Romney would be "suitable"
Then Trump is tried and removed, and..............President Romney!
Have you ever even read the 25th Amendment? You really should before you start trying to spin conspiracy theories on how it would work. Where the fuck do you get the idea that it requires a vote of just the Senate and that it requires a super majority?
Here is the entire text of the amendment. Please see in particular Section 2 which is in bold.
25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
-
Have you ever even read the 25th Amendment? You really should before you start trying to spin conspiracy theories on how it would work. Where the fuck do you get the idea that it requires a vote of just the Senate and that it requires a super majority?
Here is the entire text of the amendment. Please see in particular Section 2 which is in bold.
25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
There's no spinning conspiracy theories. This has been brought up and discussed.
I even posted links because one member said he hadn't heard anything about the desire to remove Pence as well. And the majority of those links were from the MSM.
Again, the premise is the dims would want a suitable replacement in the event of impeachment and removal. Nancy is third in line, and the radical progressives won't back her. She is showing signs of senility and can hardly function as Speaker.
They need someone that both sides would approve, otherwise while a dim would pass the house he/she would fail in the senate. The needed replacement would fall on an establishment RINO, which, Romney fits the bill.
Romney's behavior as of late is suspect. Thus why the question and scenario came up.
Face it, the dims are desperate and it shows. Their clown show debates have shown they don't have a serious candidate going into 2020. They know that 2020 will most likely be a re-election of Trump. Plus they know the Horowitz Report is about to drop, as well as the Barr-Durham Investigation and their coup attempts are going to be exposed.
-
Here's the scenario:
Pence is removed first, which means the President must select a replacement and that replacement must be approved by the senate by a super majority. If the President doesn't pick someone "suitable", the dems block the nominee. Romney would be "suitable"
Then Trump is tried and removed, and..............President Romney!
You need treason or a high crime or misdemeanor to impeach a VP. The toughest criticism of Pence is he once said he wouldn’t go out to dinner with another woman without his wife present.
Ain’t gonna happen.
-
You need treason or a high crime or misdemeanor to impeach a VP. The toughest criticism of Pence is he once said he wouldn’t go out to dinner with another woman without his wife present.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Facts aren't a consideration to those afflicted with TDS.
-
You need treason or a high crime or misdemeanor to impeach a VP. The toughest criticism of Pence is he once said he wouldn’t go out to dinner with another woman without his wife present.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Adam Schiff has a memo, and an anonymous witness.
-
Adam Schiff has a memo, and an anonymous witness.
don't forget his "script"....
-
His reversal was so blatant I believe whomever runs him told him it was Obama's turn.
Actually, I don’t think Romney has moved that much. The Republican Party has just become more fanatical and therefore he is less acceptable.
My mother used to go to church with his cousin and met him outside the political environment. She said he was very nice, with a good head on his shoulder.
-
Actually, I don’t think Romney has moved that much. The Republican Party has just become more fanatical and therefore he is less acceptable.
My mother used to go to church with his cousin and met him outside the political environment. She said he was very nice, with a good head on his shoulder.
I wasn't comparing Romney back them to now. I was comparing his first debate performance against Obama to the rest of his debates, and campaign in general. Now, Romney is just McCain 2.0. A RINO establishment Republican.
-
Actually, I don’t think Romney has moved that much. The Republican Party has just become more fanatical and therefore he is less acceptable.
What utter bullshit.
Project much?
-
What utter bullshit.
Project much?
Nope. Just calling what I see. I don’t require that you agree, but I find the Republican Party becoming as distastefully fanatic as the Democrats have been for a decade or more.
YMMV
BTW, it was about 3 years ago that my mother met him.
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/busted-mitt-romneys-secret-twitter-account-discovered-named-pierre-delecto/
-
Nope. Just calling what I see. I don’t require that you agree, but I find the Republican Party becoming as distastefully fanatic as the Democrats have been for a decade or more.
YMMV
BTW, it was about 3 years ago that my mother met him.
I disagree. The GOP may seem further right than before for two reasons.
One is the Dems have shifted so far left the gap has widened.
Also, the GOP has to fight harder in order to resist the new far left. The more defensive you get the more radical you look.
-
I disagree. The GOP may seem further right than before for two reasons.
One is the Dems have shifted so far left the gap has widened.
Also, the GOP has to fight harder in order to resist the new far left. The more defensive you get the more radical you look.
To a liberal ANY resistance to their communist agenda is considered radical, militant, and a danger to the constitution.
I asked a deeply demented progressive about the Constitution they were claiming as being in danger because President Trump said mean things, and they couldn't even define the Bill of Rights, so I guess the progressives are the real danger to the constitution, using liberal logic.
-
Mitt Romney has confessed to having a "Carlos Danger" like Twitter account to troll Trump. He's PIERRE DELECTO now. LOL!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/mitt-is-done-liked-tweets-from-mitt-romneys-secret-pierre-delecto-twitter-page-show-man-obsessed-with-trump-hatred-and-leading-gop-resistance/
-
Mitt Romney has confessed to having a "Carlos Danger" like Twitter account to troll Trump. He's PIERRE DELECTO now. LOL!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/mitt-is-done-liked-tweets-from-mitt-romneys-secret-pierre-delecto-twitter-page-show-man-obsessed-with-trump-hatred-and-leading-gop-resistance/
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2019/10/21/romney-bashed-as-total-loser-after-secret-twitter-account-is-discovered-n2555074
-
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/10/21/snit-romney-n2555047
-
Actually, I don’t think Romney has moved that much. The Republican Party has just become more fanatical and therefore he is less acceptable.
Thanks for confirming what I’ve thought for quite a while. You aren’t a moderate in any way. Moderates at least try to think.
Instead, you are projectile vomiting the same bombastic rhetoric coming out of CNNMSNBCABC etc.
Exactly how has the GOP become fanatical? Do they support infanticide? Gun confiscation? Censorship? Men using girls bathrooms because they think they are female? Mass de-incarceration of criminals? Free-passage across our borders? Ignoring federal laws through “sanctuary”?
-
Thanks for confirming what I’ve thought for quite a while. You aren’t a moderate in any way. Moderates at least try to think.
Instead, you are projectile vomiting the same bombastic rhetoric coming out of CNNMSNBCABC etc.
Exactly how has the GOP become fanatical? Do they support infanticide? Gun confiscation? Censorship? Men using girls bathrooms because they think they are female? Mass de-incarceration of criminals? Free-passage across our borders? Ignoring federal laws through “sanctuary”?
Free healthcare for illegals
Boy participating in girls sports. (Is this what Title IX was fought over)
Free education for illegals
Drivers licenses for illegals, so they can register and vote.
I'm sure there are plenty more.
Please tell us which of these you support.
-
Thanks for confirming what I’ve thought for quite a while. You aren’t a moderate in any way. Moderates at least try to think.
BTW, when you lead with insults...whatever you say afterwards is lost.
On this topic, I believe I'm better informed or at least not hampered by partisan blindness. You can't see wrong because your side could never be wrong to you. Then equally I can never trust your assessment of Democrats either. You are one of the ones who would literally not find fault with Trump if he shot someone on 5th Avenue. Who isn't thinking?
You've run out ideas and moved to insults...Roger that. Sorry, internet rules, you lose.
-
On this topic, I believe I'm better informed or at least not hampered by partisan blindness. You can't see wrong because your side could never be wrong to you. Then equally I can never trust your assessment of Democrats either. Who isn't thinking?
You've run out ideas and moved to insults...Roger that. Sorry, internet rules, you lose.
Arrogance is often the last refuge for failed liberals.
Tally-ho.
-
Arrogance is often the last refuge for failed liberals.
Pot, meet kettle.
You would suggest I am blinded by partisan loyalties? Which partisan would that be?
-
PIERRE DELECTO has taken the roll of Trump adversary similar to John McCain, most likely for PERSONAL reasons over not being given a cabinet position like Secretary of State. Why would Trump want wishy washy PIERRE DELECTO in that role? PIERRE DELECTO is just being dishonest.
-
We really should be referring to Mittens as Pierre Delecto henceforth.
-
BTW, when you lead with insults...whatever you say afterwards is lost.
On this topic, I believe I'm better informed or at least not hampered by partisan blindness. You can't see wrong because your side could never be wrong to you. Then equally I can never trust your assessment of Democrats either. You are one of the ones who would literally not find fault with Trump if he shot someone on 5th Avenue. Who isn't thinking?
You've run out ideas and moved to insults...Roger that. Sorry, internet rules, you lose.
Why would you be insulted by me saying you aren’t a moderate? My, aren’t we sensitive.
And nice deflection from your unwillingness to answer my question about why you think the GOP has become fanatical.
-
Pot, meet kettle.
You would suggest I am blinded by partisan loyalties? Which partisan would that be?
As I mentioned, arrogance is the last refuge of lost arguments.
Enjoy your false sense of superiority
-
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/limbaugh-just-crushed-romney/
-
Why would you be insulted by me saying you aren’t a moderate? My, aren’t we sensitive.
And nice deflection from your unwillingness to answer my question about why you think the GOP has become fanatical.
Oh, that question. I stopped caring what you said after you implied I was a brain dead leftist, so I never read your question.
Do you know the definition of fanatical? It means a complete rejection of any idea that you do not already agree with. It means never compromising, throwing out the great ideas because they have some element that must be rejected. Do we really need to go down that road? Of course, you can also never convince a fanatic that they are one so I don’t expect this to be a very fruitful conversation.
If we go back even just 25 years, the GOP would reasonably listen to ideas. Things were debated on their merit and good ideas were adopted. Now that never happens.
In 1964, it was Republicans in the Senate who broke the Democrat filibuster of the Civil Right Act, not because it was a political thing to do, but because treating people equally is the right thing to do. George Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act because educating children is also a good thing. I could go on. These were not Republican agenda items, they were good ideas.
Now? Republicans won’t compromise on what to order for lunch, even when it helps them. They couldn’t get out of their own way to change DACA even though it would have made sense and gotten them 90% of what they wanted. No, they needed 100% because no compromise, which goes back to the definition of fanatic.
Have Democrats changed too? Yes, both sides have become fanatic.
So, what examples do you have showing that Republicans are not more fanatic. When was the last time Republicans took up a piece of legislation from Democrats and added good ideas to it instead or rejecting it on principle?
-
So, what examples do you have showing that Republicans are not more fanatic. When was the last time Republicans took up a piece of legislation from Democrats and added good ideas to it instead or rejecting it on principle?
The fallacy of that example is assuming the democrats have introduced legislation worthy of being considered.
Can you give any examples of democrat-sponsered legislation that should have been embraced by republicans and weren't?
-
So, what examples do you have showing that Republicans are not more fanatic. When was the last time Republicans took up a piece of legislation from Democrats and added good ideas to it instead or rejecting it on principle?
The Obamacare debate.
Oh wait! They were locked out of the room.
I really do think that was when this slide towards no-negotiation/elections have consequences thing started to get out of hand.
-
I agree both sides are farther apart from each other but not sure the Republicans are actually more fanatical, just less willing to compromise because the left is proposing more and more openly radical socialist crap.
-
I agree both sides are farther apart from each other but not sure the Republicans are actually more fanatical, just less willing to compromise because the left is proposing more and more openly radical socialist crap.
There is also the fact that ever since Reagan, when the Republicans would compromise and give up something, the Democrats would take it without responding in kind. When that happens, you stop compromising because it isn't compromising; it is giving in.
-
There is also the fact that ever since Reagan, when the Republicans would compromise and give up something, the Democrats would take it without responding in kind. When that happens, you stop compromising because it isn't compromising; it is giving in.
There’s that.
-
The fallacy of that example is assuming the democrats have introduced legislation worthy of being considered.
Can you give any examples of democrat-sponsered legislation that should have been embraced by republicans and weren't?
Yes, I did, DACA. I realize it was a long read and you obviously stopped when you got to a point to argue about, but try to stick with it.
Republicans were not locked out of the room in 2016/17 and they couldn’t agree within their own party about healthcare. They weren’t willing to take 90% of the wall, so we don’t have that either.
A refusal to compromise is the hallmark of a fanatic.
-
There is also the fact that ever since Reagan, when the Republicans would compromise and give up something, the Democrats would take it without responding in kind. When that happens, you stop compromising because it isn't compromising; it is giving in.
^^^^^^This! To the Democrats "compromising" is giving in, maybe not totally, at first, but MOVING TOWARDS their far left agenda. They never give back, or ever move to the right. The Media goes along with this madness.
So what happens is the Democrats get a gradual move to and adoption of their insane Progressive policies.
-
I agree both sides are farther apart from each other but not sure the Republicans are actually more fanatical, just less willing to compromise because the left is proposing more and more openly radical socialist crap.
Unfortunately Republicans aren’t even compromising with Republicans anymore.
-
Yes, I did, DACA. I realize it was a long read and you obviously stopped when you got to a point to argue about, but try to stick with it.
Republicans were not locked out of the room in 2016/17 and they couldn’t agree within their own party about healthcare. They weren’t willing to take 90% of the wall, so we don’t have that either.
A refusal to compromise is the hallmark of a fanatic.
Once again you try insults instead of substantive agrument.
What is worthy about rewarding illegal activity?
-
Yes, I did, DACA. I realize it was a long read and you obviously stopped when you got to a point to argue about, but try to stick with it.
Republicans were not locked out of the room in 2016/17 and they couldn’t agree within their own party about healthcare. They weren’t willing to take 90% of the wall, so we don’t have that either.
A refusal to compromise is the hallmark of a fanatic.
Haha hahahahahahaha....
Stop. You’re killing me.
Do you EVER think before you pronounce such bullshit?
-
Compromising IS giving in. It is a trade to allow you don’t want in exchange for something else you want more.
Let me go back to immigration. Democrats made a mistake and made DACA the hill they would die on. That gave Republicans the chance to compromise and agree to DACA, but also to attach it to any immigration law they wanted. Full wall funding. Making not just entry, but remaining here a crime. Instituting a three strikes rule. Criminalizing document fraud.
They could have fixed all that, but they refused because there was no way they were going to allow DACA to stand. So they threw out all that good in order to reject the single objectionable thing.
But no, they could not agree and now have nothing except the assured knowledge that they were right. That is fanatic.
-
Once again you try insults instead of substantive agrument.
What is worthy about rewarding illegal activity?
If I am wrong I will apologize.
DID you read that entire post before you asked for an example of something Republicans didn’t compromise on? I must presume you did not because the example was in there.
Is it then an insult to suggest that you didn’t read it? You give every indication of not having done so.
-
If I am wrong I will apologize.
DID you read that entire post before you asked for an example of something Republicans didn’t compromise on? I must presume you did not because the example was in there.
Is it then an insult to suggest that you didn’t read it? You give every indication of not having done so.
Didn't you tell Stan you stopped reading his post for that exact same reason?
-
Unfortunately Republicans aren’t even compromising with Republicans anymore.
That’s why it’s just one big swamp in DC anymore.
-
I agree both sides are farther apart from each other but not sure the Republicans are actually more fanatical, just less willing to compromise because the left is proposing more and more openly radical socialist crap.
That's the point our resident faux intellect can seem to grasp. I've yet to see any meaningful legislation be brought forward by the democrats in the House or Senate that they were willing to sit down and attempt to negotiate.
Right now they are running with the Alinsky playbook by attempting to create as much chaos as possible. The other prong of Alinsky's playbook is to attempt to bring the system down by overloading it.
Fact: The democrat party is now controlled by the radical progressives, or what we use to call communist. They have no desire for compromise, no desire for bipartisanship, their only desire is total control. Good luck on finding common ground with that mentality.
-
The President offered to fix DACA TWICE, and give the dems what they wanted, and they refused. He actually tried to negotiate with them, yet they wanted everything and wanted to give nothing in return.
In fact, on several issues the President tried to engage the dems and agreed to compromise, and they REFUSED. It was all or nothing, this is the current mindset of the radical progressives.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/trump-daca-deal-is-a-dream-come-true-for-democrats-commentary.html
-
The President offered to fix DACA TWICE, and give the dems what they wanted, and they refused. He actually tried to negotiate with them, yet they wanted everything and wanted to give nothing in return.
In fact, on several issues the President tried to engage the dems and agreed to compromise, and they REFUSED. It was all or nothing, this is the current mindset of the radical progressives.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/trump-daca-deal-is-a-dream-come-true-for-democrats-commentary.html
To liberals, the dems refusing to negotiate is ALL Trump’s fault..... because... just because. And refusing to admit it is just proof that republicans are bad.
-
From Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"
1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
After reading this, and seeing where the radical progressives are today, now try to convince me it's those evil conservatives that are the ones that will not compromise.
You cannot compromise with someone who wants you destroyed at all cost.
-
Didn't you tell Stan you stopped reading his post for that exact same reason?
No.
There was nothing insulting in my longer post, Bob just read through until he grabbed a point to bitch about and started bitching about me not giving an example. Then I called him out because the example was given in the paragraph after the one he quoted. So he obviously stopped reading as soon as he had something to complain about.
Was I snarky when I did it? Yes, I was because I felt that snark was called for. If you're going to ping on someone for not giving an example, you should make sure they haven't already done so.
Again - if I'm wrong, I will have made a mistake and apologize, but I don't think I am.
But like I said, Republicans can't even agree with each other. Democrats seem to agree, but only because someone there uses a bigger club to beat them with if they don't.
-
To liberals, the dems refusing to negotiate is ALL Trump’s fault..... because... just because. And refusing to admit it is just proof that republicans are bad.
And vice versa.
Neither side is willing to give anything, they just shut everyone else out. The House of Representatives has gone from a body of 435 people making laws to about 10 and that is true regardless of who controls it.
When you're doing the same thing they are, you cannot say they are fanatic, but you are not. I have given multiple examples of Republican fanaticism and not seen a single counter example. But apparently, I'm the one "not thinking".
I suspect many have rejected what I've written because you don't want to believe it. The facts are all there, your choices are to ignore them or accept them.
-
Another poster indicated Trump's multiple attempts to give the Democrats what they wanted on Immigration in exchange for the Wall, and border security and immigration law enforcement. Is that an example of Republican fanaticism?
I don't see the Republicans pushing for things like "Fundamental Transformation", Amnesty (Open Borders), Freebies for Illegal Aliens, Carbon taxes, higher Income Taxes, and a plethora of other policies, The Republicans have NITHING nearly as Radical NOR Fanatic.
-
Another poster indicated Trump's multiple attempts to give the Democrats what they wanted on Immigration in exchange for the Wall, and border security and immigration law enforcement. Is that an example of Republican fanaticism?
I don't see the Republicans pushing for things like "Fundamental Transformation", Amnesty (Open Borders), Freebies for Illegal Aliens, Carbon taxes, higher Income Taxes, and a plethora of other policies, The Republicans have NITHING nearly as Radical NOR Fanatic.
Liberals don't think. They pretend they think whatever they've been told to think.
It's gotten so very old.
-
Compromising IS giving in. It is a trade to allow you don’t want in exchange for something else you want more.
Let me go back to immigration. Democrats made a mistake and made DACA the hill they would die on. That gave Republicans the chance to compromise and agree to DACA, but also to attach it to any immigration law they wanted. Full wall funding. Making not just entry, but remaining here a crime. Instituting a three strikes rule. Criminalizing document fraud.
They could have fixed all that, but they refused because there was no way they were going to allow DACA to stand. So they threw out all that good in order to reject the single objectionable thing.
But no, they could not agree and now have nothing except the assured knowledge that they were right. That is fanatic.
First, there is no way the Republicans would have gotten what you cite - full wall funding, criminalizing fraud (which is already a crime), etc. No way.
But second, it isn’t a fanatical lack of compromise. The problem is the majority of Republicans appear to also want open borders and pretty much what the democrats want, DESPITE what the people want. THAT’S why nothing got done, and THAT’S why Trump is going it alone in this fight on behalf of the American people.
Face it. You just wish to attach a bombastic label to Republicans despite the utter lack of fanaticism to which you ascribe that label. Because that’s what CNN et. al. does.
-
Little Flynn thinks anything less than FULL capitulation on the part of republicans is fanatical.
Not much thinking there. Only emoting based on orders from the masters that tell them what to think.
-
I have given multiple examples of Republican fanaticism and not seen a single counter example. But apparently, I'm the one "not thinking".
When was the last time the Dems were willing to compromise on anything affecting abortion? Waiting times? Education? Trimester limitations? Live births? Insurance coverage? Paid for by taxpayers? This is the hill they choose to die on. Fanatically.
-
Republicans were not locked out of the room in 2016/17 and they couldn’t agree within their own party about healthcare.
And you heard all of us bitching about that even though you say we never complain about the Rs.
They weren’t willing to take 90% of the wall, so we don’t have that either.
They were never offered even close to 90% of the wall. But I admit, that does sound good.
A refusal to compromise is the hallmark of a fanatic.
Trump has offered to compromise way more than the Dems, as has been pointed out more than once.
We have never let illegal aliens vote, but now the Dems want that. Republicans say "NO" and THEY are labeled radical even though it is the Dems that moved left.
The Dems want to offer tuition reimbursement. Republicans say "NO" and THEY are labeled radical even though it is the Dems that moved left.
The Dems want to pay reparations. Republicans say "NO" and THEY are labeled radical even though it is the Dems that moved left.
The Dems want to repeal the 2nd. (they don't admit it, but they do). Republicans say "NO" and THEY are labeled radical even though it is the Dems that moved left.
The Dems want "Medicare for All" Republicans say "NO" and THEY are labeled radical even though it is the Dems that moved left.
Do you see what is happening here?
-
Trump has offered to compromise way more than the Dems, as has been pointed out more than once.
We have never let illegal aliens vote, but now the Dems want that. Republicans say "NO" and THEY are labeled radical even though it is the Dems that move left.
The Dems want to offer tuition reimbursement. Republicans say "NO" and THEY are labeled radical even though it is the Dems that move left.
The Dems want to pay reparations. Republicans say "NO" and THEY are labeled radical even though it is the Dems that move left.
The Dems want to repeal the 2nd. (they don't admit it, but they do). Republicans say "NO" and THEY are labeled radical even though it is the Dems that move left.
Do you see what is happening here?
We have never offered "free college tuition". Republicans say "NO" and THEY are labeled radical even though it is the Dems that move left.
Spot on. It is the Democrats that have become fanatic, and radically FAR LEFT Progressive. The Republicans have not moved to the Right. If anything they've adopted some leftist views like supporting the illegal alien invasion for their corporate masters, and out of control big government and big government spending.
-
My observation is negotiating with Democrats means acquiescing to what they want.
-
My observation is negotiating with Democrats means acquiescing to what they want.
Bingo.
And that's what the faux intellectual is looking for.
-
My observation is negotiating with Democrats means acquiescing to what they want.
Yes, that is what negotiation is about period - I think it’s in Chapter 2 of the Art of the Deal. But also getting something back. They aren’t any better at that than Republicans because both are fanatics.
-
First, there is no way the Republicans would have gotten what you cite - full wall funding, criminalizing fraud (which is already a crime), etc. No way.
Actually, they never got together to try, so nobody knows. But after making so many statements that they would never give in on DACA, Democrats had backed themselves into a corner. Whatever bill came up for a vote that included a positive DACA section would present a challenge to them because they either had to vote for it or publicly deny the DACA crowd.
Fortunately for them, Republicans went ballistic at the mention of DACA and they never could put together a bill.
-
Another poster indicated Trump's multiple attempts to give the Democrats what they wanted on Immigration in exchange for the Wall, and border security and immigration law enforcement. Is that an example of Republican fanaticism?
I don't see the Republicans pushing for things like "Fundamental Transformation", Amnesty (Open Borders), Freebies for Illegal Aliens, Carbon taxes, higher Income Taxes, and a plethora of other policies, The Republicans have NITHING nearly as Radical NOR Fanatic.
That is an example of a deal maker trying to negotiate with someone who doesn’t really want a deal. Democrats don’t want an actual solution to immigration, they are thrilled with the status quo. So, the president has no leverage and cannot make leverage like he has in the past. Ergo, no deal.
-
That is an example of a deal maker trying to negotiate with someone who doesn’t really want a deal. Democrats don’t want an actual solution to immigration, they are thrilled with the status quo. So, the president has no leverage and cannot make leverage like he has in the past. Ergo, no deal.
But Of Course, you think it’s the republicans at fault.
What useless drivel.
-
So, what examples do you have showing that Republicans are not more fanatic. When was the last time Republicans took up a piece of legislation from Democrats and added good ideas to it instead or rejecting it on principle?
So I had a silly thought... to actually look at legislation. Now, there are lots of bills that get submitted and only a small percentage make it all the way to becoming law.
from www.congress.gov
The 115th Congress had 18732 pieces of legislation, 443 became law (no vetos)
The 116th Congress has (so far) 10324 pieces of legislation, 65 became law (6 vetos from President Trump)
Now, while I'm retired, I don't have infinite time to look through 10324 pieces of legislation (never mind the other type of stuff such as resolutions, etc). So, I thought I'd look first at the legislation that passed. At first I looked at the 115th Congress, but at first blush there were lots of republican co-sponsors of bills sponsored by democrats. And I figured that looking through 65 bills would be easier... at least to get an initial feel of things.
If your premise of Republicans being fanatics without compromise is true, then none (or perhaps very few) pieces of legislation would have Republican co-sponsors. Eight of the 65 had zero co-sponsors. Five house bills were sponsored by a (D) without any co-sponsors. Three Senate bills had zero co-sponsors (1 D, 2 R).
Of the remaining 57 bills, three bills sponsored by a democrat had 0 republican sponsors. That means 54 bills included republicans as co-sponsors. Interestly, 2 hour bills sponsored by democrats only had democrat co-sponsors, and 2 house bills sponsored by republicans only had republican co-sponsors. All the rest had a mixture.
yup, those republicans are fanatics. No doubt about it.
pesky facts.
-
I think that fact that the Rs can't even agree amongst themselves can be a good thing. It means Rs are voting their conscience, or maybe their constituents wishes and yes, even the highest bidding lobbyist.
But Dems all vote in lock step. Either they are all part of some sort of collective and they all think the same way, or they are being controlled by someone with a big stick and a big agenda and a lot of money.
-
So I had a silly thought... to actually look at legislation. Now, there are lots of bills that get submitted and only a small percentage make it all the way to becoming law.
from www.congress.gov
The 115th Congress had 18732 pieces of legislation, 443 became law (no vetos)
The 116th Congress has (so far) 10324 pieces of legislation, 65 became law (6 vetos from President Trump)
Now, while I'm retired, I don't have infinite time to look through 10324 pieces of legislation (never mind the other type of stuff such as resolutions, etc). So, I thought I'd look first at the legislation that passed. At first I looked at the 115th Congress, but at first blush there were lots of republican co-sponsors of bills sponsored by democrats. And I figured that looking through 65 bills would be easier... at least to get an initial feel of things.
If your premise of Republicans being fanatics without compromise is true, then none (or perhaps very few) pieces of legislation would have Republican co-sponsors. Eight of the 65 had zero co-sponsors. Five house bills were sponsored by a (D) without any co-sponsors. Three Senate bills had zero co-sponsors (1 D, 2 R).
Of the remaining 57 bills, three bills sponsored by a democrat had 0 republican sponsors. That means 54 bills included republicans as co-sponsors. Interestly, 2 hour bills sponsored by democrats only had democrat co-sponsors, and 2 house bills sponsored by republicans only had republican co-sponsors. All the rest had a mixture.
yup, those republicans are fanatics. No doubt about it.
pesky facts.
When you obtain your intelligence from CNN.com, you get what you pay for.
-
or they are being controlled by someone with a big stick and a big agenda and a lot of money.
Ding, ding, ding! Hence my post about Obama and Holder meeting with Soros's son regarding New York state Gerrymandering. They are controlled by foreign and domestic Masters of the Universe including Michael Bloomberg, Soros and others.
-
So I had a silly thought... to actually look at legislation. Now, there are lots of bills that get submitted and only a small percentage make it all the way to becoming law.
from www.congress.gov
The 115th Congress had 18732 pieces of legislation, 443 became law (no vetos)
The 116th Congress has (so far) 10324 pieces of legislation, 65 became law (6 vetos from President Trump)
Now, while I'm retired, I don't have infinite time to look through 10324 pieces of legislation (never mind the other type of stuff such as resolutions, etc). So, I thought I'd look first at the legislation that passed. At first I looked at the 115th Congress, but at first blush there were lots of republican co-sponsors of bills sponsored by democrats. And I figured that looking through 65 bills would be easier... at least to get an initial feel of things.
If your premise of Republicans being fanatics without compromise is true, then none (or perhaps very few) pieces of legislation would have Republican co-sponsors. Eight of the 65 had zero co-sponsors. Five house bills were sponsored by a (D) without any co-sponsors. Three Senate bills had zero co-sponsors (1 D, 2 R).
Of the remaining 57 bills, three bills sponsored by a democrat had 0 republican sponsors. That means 54 bills included republicans as co-sponsors. Interestly, 2 hour bills sponsored by democrats only had democrat co-sponsors, and 2 house bills sponsored by republicans only had republican co-sponsors. All the rest had a mixture.
yup, those republicans are fanatics. No doubt about it.
pesky facts.
How dare you use facts! ::)
-
I don’t understand how Anyone except a republican fanatic could rely on facts to make a decision.....
-
So I had a silly thought... to actually look at legislation. Now, there are lots of bills that get submitted and only a small percentage make it all the way to becoming law.
from www.congress.gov
The 115th Congress had 18732 pieces of legislation, 443 became law (no vetos)
The 116th Congress has (so far) 10324 pieces of legislation, 65 became law (6 vetos from President Trump)
Now, while I'm retired, I don't have infinite time to look through 10324 pieces of legislation (never mind the other type of stuff such as resolutions, etc). So, I thought I'd look first at the legislation that passed. At first I looked at the 115th Congress, but at first blush there were lots of republican co-sponsors of bills sponsored by democrats. And I figured that looking through 65 bills would be easier... at least to get an initial feel of things.
If your premise of Republicans being fanatics without compromise is true, then none (or perhaps very few) pieces of legislation would have Republican co-sponsors. Eight of the 65 had zero co-sponsors. Five house bills were sponsored by a (D) without any co-sponsors. Three Senate bills had zero co-sponsors (1 D, 2 R).
Of the remaining 57 bills, three bills sponsored by a democrat had 0 republican sponsors. That means 54 bills included republicans as co-sponsors. Interestly, 2 hour bills sponsored by democrats only had democrat co-sponsors, and 2 house bills sponsored by republicans only had republican co-sponsors. All the rest had a mixture.
yup, those republicans are fanatics. No doubt about it.
pesky facts.
Congratulation. After six pages, you’re the first one to present any factual evidence.
Let’s break them down?
12 of those 62 bills were “honor” acts, to name something like a post office in honor of someone. One grants an honorary appointment as a colonel in the Army. One requires a commemorative coin to be struck.
About 16 were budgetary or reauthorizations. That category is always tricky because a lot of bills authorize spending in just one area.
I don’t see anything remotely partisan in the other bills. Protecting farmers and veterans. There’s a bill modifying qualification for the American Legion. Registering pesticides. Requiring a security exercise for terrorism. Modifying the credit hours requirement for a scholarship. More stringent requirements for patents. These aren’t things that people adopt positions over. it looks like most weren’t even officially voted on, they were agreed to by a voice vote.
Interesting one, the “restore the Harmony Way Bridge Act” conveys owner ship of a historic bridge to Illinois because federal law was preventing its restoration. The sponsorship was bipartisan but all from IL where the bridge is located.
I will need to dig deeper and compare this to previous sessions, maybe this weekend.
It actually isn’t surprising that bipartisan bills get passed, that’s kinda what is going to happen with a split Congress. That Congress can get together on a few topics is not necessarily indicative of whether or not sides are fanatic, these are politicians who want to get re-elected. Having a R and a D in the list of sponsors isn’t really showing that they work together, just that they can recognize an opportunity for good PR.
What is probably more indicative is the difference of bills introduced / passed during split Congresses vs unilaterally controlled Congresses. And also what didn’t pass or only passed one house.
-
Congratulation. After six pages, you’re the first one to present any factual evidence.
I have to laugh.
-
I will need to dig deeper and compare this to previous sessions, maybe this weekend.
Why? You already concluded that republicans are fanatics. You should already have the data to support that conclusion.
-
Why? You already concluded that republicans are fanatics. You should already have the data to support that conclusion.
Several of us have posted factual statements absolutely refuting that the Republicans are the fanatical ones, yet he posts NO FACTS to support his ridiculous claim. I am no fan of the GOP as I think they are leaving Trump to hang out to dry, and are just big spending, big government types. However, Flynn is just plain wrong and won't admit it. Not surprised.
-
Several of us have posted factual statements absolutely refuting that the Republicans are the fanatical ones, yet he posts NO FACTS to support his ridiculous claim. I am no fan of the GOP as I think they are leaving Trump to hang out to dry, and are just big spending, big government types. However, Flynn is just plain wrong and won't admit it. Not surprised.
Yep. Once again playing the pseudointellectual. No surprise.
-
Yep. Once again playing the pseudointellectual. No surprise.
Pseudo? But I heard the exact same stuff on CNN the last time I was in an airport. Surely he’s as brilliant as CNN.
-
Why? You already concluded that republicans are fanatics. You should already have the data to support that conclusion.
and I've given ample examples here already of the fanatic behavior I've seen, of Republicans wanting to be right more than they want to win.
You've presented evidence and I will need to consider evidence. Isn't that what rational people do? Illogical, emotional people both practice and expect others to make decisions and stick to them in the face of overwhelming evidence. I know there are some here who are like that, but as you've been the first that presented actual, I owe it to evaluate that. Too busy until at least Saturda, I shouldn't even be slacking off now to respond, but I've already had enough of work for the week.
-
Several of us have posted factual statements absolutely refuting that the Republicans are the fanatical ones, yet he posts NO FACTS to support his ridiculous claim. I am no fan of the GOP as I think they are leaving Trump to hang out to dry, and are just big spending, big government types. However, Flynn is just plain wrong and won't admit it. Not surprised.
I must have missed your facts. I know that I've posted multiple topics upon which the Republicans refused to win, Immigration being the most recent. You and others have doubted that Republicans got in their own way, which means...what, that Democrats outplayed them and they lost? When Republicans controlled both sides of Congress, they couldn't get stuff done because they insisted on being right. You don't remember that?
-
Yep. Once again playing the pseudointellectual. No surprise
A hell of a lot better than your non-intellectual status Lucy.
-
and I've given ample examples here already of the fanatic behavior I've seen, of Republicans wanting to be right more than they want to win.
There are radicals on both ends of the bell curve. Does anyone dispute that?
So the questions is how symetrical is the curve. We can't know by individual examples. All that shows is the amount of effort invested in digging up examples.
But IMNSHO, the whole bell curve has shifted left and I think that is a bad thing. People are being lead astray by promises of free things and are being preyed upon (for their votes) because there is always someone that has more than them. And the fact that there are more poor people than rich people means there are more people to be lead astray to the left.
-
I must have missed your facts. I know that I've posted multiple topics upon which the Republicans refused to win, Immigration being the most recent. You and others have doubted that Republicans got in their own way, which means...what, that Democrats outplayed them and they lost? When Republicans controlled both sides of Congress, they couldn't get stuff done because they insisted on being right. You don't remember that?
I gave specific factual examples in post #60. The Republicans had control of Congress for the first two years of Trump, and no, they could not get things like Obamacare repealed due to Republicans like McCain. That's not being "fanatical", which is your claim, that is some Republicans just being dishonest liars.
So don't try to pivot to a Republican controlled Congress when you claim Republicans have become fanatical, because they haven't.
-
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mle191022c20191021105812.jpg)
-
"It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance"
-Thomas Sowell
-
This has is fairly long - and I suspect quite a few won't read it or will only read a little of it. I encourage you to dig in - there's information here that is probably beneficial to you.
Here's an interesting page which analyzes the members of Congress on the political spectrum. It's no secret that I believe Congress on both sides has gotten more radical over the years and I attribute that primarily to political gerrymandering, which has increased in the past 50 years. When one party has a statistical advantage, the election is really decided in the primary by the voters of one party, which is how we got AOC, Talib and other members of the Squad. But it's also how the Tea Party members got elected for Republicans.
https://www.voteview.com/parties/all
The analysis is done using a data method called NOMINATE which was developed in 1980. It therefore has the property of not having been "tweaked" to product a certain desired result given a modern data set.
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3947.0;attach=1194;image)
There are a couple of things that I find striking about this chart.
1) Yes, Democrats have been getting more and more leftist pretty much since WWII.
2) Yes, Republicans have been getting more and more rightist, but they have also moved further and faster that the Democrats have - perhaps this gives the illusion of them being more extreme.
3) However, Republicans are further right (.51) than Democrats are left (-.4). Obviously, this could be a bias inherent in the grading system, but if it is, it is unintentional because 40 years ago nobody knew who was going to be elected to Congress today. Furthermore 40 years ago, Republicans and Democrats were graded roughly equally, both about .25/-.25 from the center.
4) Republicans are the furthest to the right that they ever have been and they are the furthest from the center that a party ever has been since the short lived Federalist Party of 1800. Is this a warning sign?
My conclusion is that if we just grade Republicans of today against Republicans of 1985, then they have moved twice as far to the right as they used to be. That doesn't compare them against Democrats, it compares them against themselves.
I also allow that maybe part of my observation is generational - because I know what Republicans were like in the 1980s, I can see the difference. If you're under 40 or less, you haven't seen them move as much, so the word "fanatic" doesn't meant the same thing. However I still stand by my assertion that Republicans have become incapable of compromise, which is why I apply the term fanatic to them.
Here's another page from Pew Research that backs that up: TLDR version, both sides say that compromise is important in politics, but both sides don't think their sides should compromise. Isn't someone who doesn't compromise the definition of fanatic - they "know" they're right, so they refuse to give in. That isn't politics, that's religion.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/19/partisans-say-respect-and-compromise-are-important-in-politics-particularly-from-their-opponents/
Overall - whether or not you agree Republicans fit into the category of "fanatic", I don't think you can disagree that they compromise less now than they used to or that the average Republican is more to the right than they used to be. This creates more divisive government and larger swings in government.
-
^^^^^I read the entire thing. However, what specific issues do you think the GOP has become fanatical?
Jobs and the economy
Tax policy
Energy policy
Foreign policy
National Defense
Welfare
Regulations
Environment
Race relations
LGBT
-
This has is fairly long - and I suspect quite a few won't read it or will only read a little of it.
once again starting with snarky comments. Hardly a positive start from someone who complains about insults..
https://www.voteview.com/parties/all
The analysis is done using a data method called NOMINATE which was developed in 1980. It therefore has the property of not having been "tweaked" to product a certain desired result given a modern data set.
Did I miss the part where they explain how the liberal/conservative labels are applied?
I also allow that maybe part of my observation is generational - because I know what Republicans were like in the 1980s, I can see the difference. If you're under 40 or less, you haven't seen them move as much, so the word "fanatic" doesn't meant the same thing. However I still stand by my assertion that Republicans have become incapable of compromise, which is why I apply the term fanatic to them.
Here's another page from Pew Research that backs that up: TLDR version, both sides say that compromise is important in politics, but both sides don't think their sides should compromise. Isn't someone who doesn't compromise the definition of fanatic - they "know" they're right, so they refuse to give in. That isn't politics, that's religion.
Well, there have been many examples provided where republicans have worked with democrats. Those examples are inconsistent with your claim.
and ya know, you act like compromise is a virtue.
As an exercise for the student, compare and constrast "Reciprocity" and "Compromise". And "fanatic" with "principled"
-
^^^^^I read the entire thing. However, what specific issues do you think the GOP has become fanatical?
Jobs and the economy
Tax policy
Energy policy
Foreign policy
National Defense
Welfare
Regulations
Environment
Race relations
LGBT
Most if not all of the above.
Remember that I define fanatic as someone so assured of their righteousness that it is impossible for them to compromise.
Let me know if any of these statements are wrong or if you think Republicans would compromise on them.
1) Tax cuts are good for the economy and furthermore, for the people who then have more money in their pockets.
2) Solar, wind, geothermal research needs to be increased so we have options for the future when oil, gas and coal run out.
3) National Defense - bigger is better. If you disagree with that, you're obviously a commie and cannot be trusted. You probably hate the United States and want to destroy it.
4) There should be no welfare at the federal level. The federal government is not vested with care of individual welfare. Giving away money is evil and corrupts markets
5) Regulations strangle businesses and make the Unites States noncompetitive in the world. We need to reduce the number of regulations.
6) Environmental regulations are just more regulations that aren't needed and increase costs.
7) Racial equality has gone too far and become racial preferences creating new discrimination.
8) Homosexuality and transgenderism is unnatural and should not be promoted. There are two sexes and that is all.
How about it - can you honestly say that Republicans would compromise on any of those?
-
Did I miss the part where they explain how the liberal/conservative labels are applied?
Yes. First sentences of the 4th paragraphs.
The analysis is done using a data method called NOMINATE which was developed in 1980.
-
Most if not all of the above.
Remember that I define fanatic as someone so assured of their righteousness that it is impossible for them to compromise.
Let me know if any of these statements are wrong or if you think Republicans would compromise on them.
1) Tax cuts are good for the economy and furthermore, for the people who then have more money in their pockets.
2) Solar, wind, geothermal research needs to be increased so we have options for the future when oil, gas and coal run out.
3) National Defense - bigger is better. If you disagree with that, you're obviously a commie and cannot be trusted. You probably hate the United States and want to destroy it.
4) There should be no welfare at the federal level. The federal government is not vested with care of individual welfare. Giving away money is evil and corrupts markets
5) Regulations strangle businesses and make the Unites States noncompetitive in the world. We need to reduce the number of regulations.
6) Environmental regulations are just more regulations that aren't needed and increase costs.
7) Racial equality has gone too far and become racial preferences creating new discrimination.
8) Homosexuality and transgenderism is unnatural and should not be promoted. There are two sexes and that is all.
How about it - can you honestly say that Republicans would compromise on any of those?
Oh, come on! The reason we’re in this fucking mess right now is because Republicans HAVE compromised on those very issues!
Being too nice doesn’t promote human flourishing.
-
Oh, come on! The reason we’re in this fucking mess right now is because Republicans HAVE compromised on those very issues!
Being too nice doesn’t promote human flourishing.
I see, so compromising on these topics was wrong because Republicans are right about them and therefore should stand firm?
Can you give examples of compromises from the last 10 years by the party as a whole? Or even by individuals (aka RINOs).
-
My conclusion is that if we just grade Republicans of today against Republicans of 1985, then they have moved twice as far to the right as they used to be. That doesn't compare them against Democrats, it compares them against themselves.
That is quite interesting, and not exactly what I expected.
But just let me throw this out. I am now 67; part of the aging Baby Boomer generation.
In 1976, I was a 24 yr old liberal, tainted by the Vietnam war. In 1977 (age 25) I voted for Jimmy Carter. I first met him while in high school and he was campaigning for Governor of Georgia and he came to our high school. I was on the welcoming committee. He had gone to Ga. Tech and was part of my inspiration to go there too. The second time I met him was 1976 while while he was campaigning for President and I was working on developing one of the first seat turtle observation programs in the United States on Jekyll Island. He visited our group and he actually remembered me from the high school trip. When I was introduced to him I told him I met him before. Without prompting he said "Oh yes, I was at your high school during the governor campaign". He blew me away with that and I voted for him. :-[
But while he was President, I morphed from a rebellious liberal kid to an adult. I experienced 20% interest rates as I was "attempting" to be a real estate salesman. The vietnam war was still eating at the country and it seemed like everything was crumbling. I was having trouble making a living, but what little I made was taxed.
Then came Ronald Reagan (who to this day is my political hero although he is probably too liberal to be a Republican today).
So yeah, I can see that a lot of my contemporaries have moved substantially to the right. But I don't call that fanaticism. I call that becoming realists. The Democrat party today is based on Utopian dreams and wishes. They are trying to remove all semblance of self improvement and incentive to do better. They are teaching the country just the opposite of what JFK said. Now it is "Ask what your country can do for you; not what you can do for your country" and that is driving me farther right in order to protect our way of life.
But I still consider myself a RINO.
I believe in protecting the environment because I like a clean environment. Not because I think man is warming or cooling it.
I believe that Gays should be allowed to marry anyone they choose. Or that anyone should be able to marry as many people as they wish.
I am not for abortion, but I don't think it is my place to put that into law to force others to believe as I do.
I believe in strong public education, but I am firmly against the Federal Government trying to dictate what is taught from Florida to Alaska and San Diego to Maine.
I think immigrants are vital to this country and we should enhance and streamline the procedure for admitting them. But I think they should be shot at the border if they try to sneak in.
My beliefs are all over the political spectrum, but there is nothing in the Republican that would cause me to revolt. Can't say that for the Democrat platform.
My liberal in-laws do in fact think I am a fanatic. They base that on the fact that I don't hate everything about Trump. That makes me even less likely to side with them on anything.
Now I'm rambling and will stop for now.
edit: changed "history" to "hero".
-
I see, so compromising on these topics was wrong because Republicans are right about them and therefore should stand firm?
There are times when I wonder if you are even an adult.
Your concept of fanatical is simple partisan bullshit and fails the smell test.
-
statistics can be fun, but aren't proof of anything... unless the assumptions of the statistical analysis are valid and not always even then.
But, for a moment let's say, for argument sake, that republicans are much much more conservative than they used to be and that liberals are more liberal than they used to be.
so exactly what does that have to do with compromising or not compromising?
-
statistics can be fun, but aren't proof of anything... unless the assumptions of the statistical analysis are valid and not always even then.
But, for a moment let's say, for argument sake, that republicans are much much more conservative than they used to be and that liberals are more liberal than they used to be.
so exactly what does that have to do with compromising or not compromising?
Well, it is more difficult to compromise with a fanatic. And it is pretty impossible if both sides are fanatical.
But I still maintain it is the liberal wing of the liberal politicians that are the fanatics. And THEY are inspired by the number of people that are single issue voters.
-
"It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance"
-Thomas Sowell
So true and spot on!! Sowell is a frickin genius.
-
statistics can be fun, but aren't proof of anything... unless the assumptions of the statistical analysis are valid and not always even then.
But, for a moment let's say, for argument sake, that republicans are much much more conservative than they used to be and that liberals are more liberal than they used to be.
so exactly what does that have to do with compromising or not compromising?
I think it is assumed that moving the average further right implies that ideas on the left...and probably some in the middle...become unacceptable.
Remember, we are taking about individuals, not stating that every Republican is a fanatic, nor about every topic. If the Republican leadership want to do something, but they can’t get everyone board, then it doesn’t happen. That can either be the centrists (McCain) or the extremists (say, Pete Sessions). Either way, one persons or group, like the Freedom Caucus, prevent something from happening because it is unacceptable to them. But in doing so, they pull the average of the entire group to the right.
The statistics method has been peer reviewed and won awards for its application. I don’t think the validity of the mathematics can be questioned. I stated that there obviously could be bias, but bias doesn’t seem possible when comparing Republicans to Republicans.
-
There are times when I wonder if you are even an adult.
Your concept of fanatical is simple partisan bullshit and fails the smell test.
You seem to be an angry man. It must be sad going though life like that.
-
I think it is assumed that moving the average further right implies that ideas on the left...and probably some in the middle...become unacceptable.
[snipperrooo]
So you are claiming (albeit without evidence) that compromise is not possible with people the more "extreme" they are.
And, building on that house of cards, you therefore claim that republicans are fanatics.
I alluded to this before, but I'll ask point-blank: Do you think that compromise is a virtue?
Do you not recognize the negative connotations of compromise?
Have you considered the differences between compromise and reciprocity?
Have you considered the differences between being a fanatic and being principled?
-
This wasn't aimed at me, but let me provide some of my answers:
(note: You can assume that almost all of my answers come with an implied, "most of the time", or "almost always" or other wiggle words because in politics, there are very few absolutes. Except that I would absolutely vote for anybody B U T Clinton or any one of the squad.
So you are claiming (albeit without evidence) that compromise is not possible with people the more "extreme" they are.
It's not impossible, but it is very difficult to compromise with extremists. They are always going to want more than you are willing to give.
And, building on that house of cards, you therefore claim that republicans are fanatics.
He does seem to be saying that, and I just shake my head and wonder how people can view the same things so differently.
I alluded to this before, but I'll ask point-blank: Do you think that compromise is a virtue?
I do. Compromise is necessary when you have more than one person involved. But when compromise becomes capitulation, then we have a problem. Like when Reagan compromised to allow higher taxes for lower spending, and never got the lower spending. The old saying "fool me once . . ." comes to mind.
Do you not recognize the negative connotations of compromise?
The biggest negative is when one or both parties do not compromise in good faith, of if one of the parties is being misled or is incompetent.
Have you considered the differences between compromise and reciprocity?
Many differences, but again with Reagan: "Trust but Verify". Compromises must have built in safe-guards.
Have you considered the differences between being a fanatic and being principled?
That's tough. A very "principled" liberal seems like a fanatic to me. And centrists (like me) seem like fanatics to actual fanatics (like my in-laws).
And on to a different topic, I disagree with Flynn on a lot of points. But we have to give him credit for hanging in there and providing at least some evidence for his position. He is not a "drive-by" liberal like some we have seen. And he does actually cause me to rethink some of my opinions.
Part of the problem is that there is so much conflicting information out there, it really is difficult to tell what is true. Again with Reagan:
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
That can apply to both sides, especially when you get your information from the internet. That is why this so-called "whistle blower" has been so discredited for providing second hand information.
-
Your enumerated list captures a number of issues which, indeed, should not be compromised upon. COMPROMISE MAKES A GOOD UMBRELLA BUT A POOR ROOF.
You and I could have hours of excellent conversation about how each of those items are important to address in a constitutional republic, right down to the last one about, yes, “unnatural” behavior. That’s not a biased or bigoted judgement, it’s an uncomfortable fact. While it feasibly arises from nature, you caught the important part, to Conservatives, that it “should not be promoted.” You’ve seen yourself what happens when sexuality and gender are wrenched into “victim” -level status. The kid in Texas right now whose Mom decided he is a girl. Men taking top spots in women’s sports. Businesspeople forced to participate in sexually-driven unions. I might add here that most Conservatives actually thought oh whatever, let ‘em marry ... and the laws passed. Then the lawsuits started coming from gays (and in my state, the AG himself) who couldn’t show the same tolerance to others THAT THEY DEMANDED FOR THEMSELVES.
Republicans are not blind to environmental issues. They understand the importance of a strong military but you seem to indicate they want an ever larger, unlimited one. Not so.
They have compromised for decades now on racial equity schemes which, by their very nature, have created less equity. Nothing guarantees INEQUALITY like IDENTITY!
And so on. In my lifetime I’ve seen fairly gentle transfers of power in the US after presidential elections. You tell me how the 2016 election doesn’t reflect the results of decades of compromising toward the left and its screaming, toddler-like insistence on MORE MORE MORE.
I see, so compromising on these topics was wrong because Republicans are right about them and therefore should stand firm?
Can you give examples of compromises from the last 10 years by the party as a whole? Or even by individuals (aka RINOs).
Remember that I define fanatic as someone so assured of their righteousness that it is impossible for them to compromise.
Let me know if any of these statements are wrong or if you think Republicans would compromise on them.
1) Tax cuts are good for the economy and furthermore, for the people who then have more money in their pockets.
2) Solar, wind, geothermal research needs to be increased so we have options for the future when oil, gas and coal run out.
3) National Defense - bigger is better. If you disagree with that, you're obviously a commie and cannot be trusted. You probably hate the United States and want to destroy it.
4) There should be no welfare at the federal level. The federal government is not vested with care of individual welfare. Giving away money is evil and corrupts markets
5) Regulations strangle businesses and make the Unites States noncompetitive in the world. We need to reduce the number of regulations.
6) Environmental regulations are just more regulations that aren't needed and increase costs.
7) Racial equality has gone too far and become racial preferences creating new discrimination.
8) Homosexuality and transgenderism is unnatural and should not be promoted. There are two sexes and that is all.
How about it - can you honestly say that Republicans would compromise on any of those?
-
wrt reciprocity vs compromise:
The key with reciprocity is the mutual benefit aspect. Contrast that with the populer (mis)conception is that the best compromise is when all sides are equally unhappy.
-
You seem to be an angry man. It must be sad going though life like that.
You seem like an egotistical asshole.
I bet you think you’re the smartest person every room.
-
Remember giving illegals citizenship and then we'll secure the border. How many illegals do we have today?
-
Remember giving illegals citizenship and then we'll secure the border. How many illegals do we have today?
Yes, Reagan and all of us had a valuable lesson reinforced with that one. When you do actually compromise with the Democrats make sure they do what they are promising to do before you actually do anything. They usually don't come through with their end of the bargain unless FORCED by you not doing yours.
Democrats are the DISHONEST fanatics and prove it over and over with things like immigration, and other issues.
-
So you are claiming (albeit without evidence) that compromise is not possible with people the more "extreme" they are.
And, building on that house of cards, you therefore claim that republicans are fanatics.
I alluded to this before, but I'll ask point-blank: Do you think that compromise is a virtue?
Do you not recognize the negative connotations of compromise?
Have you considered the differences between compromise and reciprocity?
Have you considered the differences between being a fanatic and being principled?
No, you have it backwards and you are inserting absolutes. Honestly, after all this I don't see how you could misrepresent the idea this badly unless you just haven't been following or you just are trying to intentionally twist it.
When someone becomes more fanatic, compromise with them becomes harder or impossible. It is not that they refuse to compromise first, that is an outcome. Start from that and rebuild.
-
let me try again: Do you think that compromise is a virtue?
-
No, you have it backwards and you are inserting absolutes. Honestly, after all this I don't see how you could misrepresent the idea this badly unless you just haven't been following or you just are trying to intentionally twist it.
One of the things I learned a long time ago: sometimes it's possible to think you've written something absolutely clear but have an informed reader misunderstand what you attempted to say.
btw - "fanatic" and "fanatical" are, by definition, absolutes. It's silly to talk about someone being just a little fanatical. Sort of like being a little bit pregnant.
-
let me try again: Do you think that compromise is a virtue?
I think that advancing your ball is a virtue. When you get so caught up on being right that you lose, then it’s bad.
Compromise is a tool. Properly used with give and take, it can be used to advance the things you care about. Again, chapter 2 of trump’s book.
How about being fanatical on just some things? Wouldn’t that make a person overall just a little fanatical? Think bigger.
-
How about being fanatical on just some things? Wouldn’t that make a person overall just a little fanatical? Think bigger.
Think about the definition of "fanatical".
-
Yes, Reagan and all of us had a valuable lesson reinforced with that one. When you do actually compromise with the Democrats make sure they do what they are promising to do before you actually do anything. They usually don't come through with their end of the bargain unless FORCED by you not doing yours.
Democrats are the DISHONEST fanatics and prove it over and over with things like immigration, and other issues.
This is why “Omnibus” or “Comprehensive” bills are worthless. They hide too much shit, and prevent accountability to their terms.
“Comprehensive Immigration Reform” is code for “Let’s fuck with Republicans again so they never get their wall.”
-
I think that advancing your ball is a virtue. When you get so caught up on being right that you lose, then it’s bad.
Compromise is a tool. Properly used with give and take, it can be used to advance the things you care about. Again, chapter 2 of trump’s book.
How about being fanatical on just some things? Wouldn’t that make a person overall just a little fanatical? Think bigger.
Is it fanatical to not want to compromise on the Bill of Rights? For example, Red Flag laws are being pushed as “common sense” gun laws. Yet these don’t just violate the second amendment. They also violate the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th. Do you consider no willingness to compromise on a red flag law as being fanatical?
-
Is it fanatical to not want to compromise on the Bill of Rights? For example, Red Flag laws are being pushed as “common sense” gun laws. Yet these don’t just violate the second amendment. They also violate the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th. Do you consider no willingness to compromise on a red flag law as being fanatical?
I’m sure Flynn will get back to you as soon as cnn tells him what his opinion is on that subject.
-
Is it fanatical to not want to compromise on the Bill of Rights? For example, Red Flag laws are being pushed as “common sense” gun laws. Yet these don’t just violate the second amendment. They also violate the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th. Do you consider no willingness to compromise on a red flag law as being fanatical?
Yes, I do consider that to be fanatic.
A Red Flag law is not inherently against the Constitution, unless you take the stance that it is NEVER permissible for the government to remove a weapon. In that case, you'd better be getting petitions together to rearm felons and the mentally ill.
Red Flag laws can be implemented in a fair manner, but unfortunately most of the ones that are out there right now are not.
-
Think about the definition of "fanatical".
You think someone who is a fanatic must be a fanatic on every topic?
That's rather fanatical.
-
Yes, I do consider that to be fanatic.
A Red Flag law is not inherently against the Constitution, unless you take the stance that it is NEVER permissible for the government to remove a weapon. In that case, you'd better be getting petitions together to rearm felons and the mentally ill.
Red Flag laws can be implemented in a fair manner, but unfortunately most of the ones that are out there right now are not.
Fail. Someone who is a felon has already had his due process.
Let me know how someone who has not committed a crime and has had his weapons confiscated by the police has received the Constitutionally-protected right to due process.
-
Fail. Someone who is a felon has already had his due process.
Let me know how someone who has not committed a crime and has had his weapons confiscated by the police has received the Constitutionally-protected right to due process.
As you know it is already against the law for Felons to possess firearms yet they do it ALL THE TIME. In PA at least you can falsely accuse someone of something, have their guns taken away without due process, then ADMIT it was all made up and by LAW nothing can happen to you. So there is no downside for making false accusations. Totally effed up.
-
As you know it is already against the law for Felons to possess firearms yet they do it ALL THE TIME. In PA at least you can falsely accuse someone of something, have their guns taken away without due process, then ADMIT it was all made up and by LAW nothing can happen to you. So there is no downside for making false accusations. Totally effed up.
And you won't get your guns back either.
-
Yes, I do consider that to be fanatic.
A Red Flag law is not inherently against the Constitution, unless you take the stance that it is NEVER permissible for the government to remove a weapon. In that case, you'd better be getting petitions together to rearm felons and the mentally ill.
Red Flag laws can be implemented in a fair manner, but unfortunately most of the ones that are out there right now are not.
How do you make a Red Flag law objective? Being a Felon is pretty objective as you have been judged by a jury of your peers. Under a Red Flag law, you could be accused by a relative on the opposite political spectrum and have the Feds show up at your door to take your guns.
-
And you won't get your guns back either.
That's one of the major problems with most of the current Red Flag laws, but it ties mostly into the lack of accountability of police forces.
Red Flag laws are not a bad idea, but they right now are implemented in a way that will inevitably infringe on the constitutional rights of innocent people.
-
That's one of the major problems with most of the current Red Flag laws, but it ties mostly into the lack of accountability of police forces.
Red Flag laws are not a bad idea, but they right now are implemented in a way that will inevitably infringe on the constitutional rights of innocent people.
Yes, accountability of police forces is a huge problem. Civil asset forfeiture, of which this kind of gun confiscation is only the tip of the iceberg, is one of the most shameful corruptions of authority we have in this country.
-
... they right now are implemented in a way that will inevitably infringe on the constitutional rights of innocent people.
You mean like the majority of gun laws do already?
-
I think some good points were raised in response to bflynn in Post #108 of this thread. Would love to see a response.
-
That's one of the major problems with most of the current Red Flag laws, but it ties mostly into the lack of accountability of police forces.
Red Flag laws are not a bad idea, but they right now are implemented in a way that will inevitably infringe on the constitutional rights of innocent people.
Do you have an example of a red flag law that doesn’t infringe on a person’s due process, unreasonable search and seizure, and second amendment rights?