192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -4  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 10:41 am
@maporsche,
I absolutely can and am. You and many others (liberal and conservative) have a pronounced tendency to see essentially the same behaviors of Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives from what amounts to a tribal perspective that always identifies one as good and one as bad.

Your incredulity that someone might see them both as good or bad demonstrates how committed you are to that perspective.
ossobucotemp
 
  3  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 10:59 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I remember poor neighborhoods in Washington DC, but that was in 1977 when we walked quite a bit of the city. Perhaps by now it's changed. Maybe you were talking about only the government work force that may or well may not live in the city - they probably all have living wages.

I'll agree we don't really know about the input the committee got or heard; hard to tell from here.
maporsche
 
  6  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 11:01 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I absolutely can and am. You and many others (liberal and conservative) have a pronounced tendency to see essentially the same behaviors of Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives from what amounts to a tribal perspective that always identifies one as good and one as bad.

Your incredulity that someone might see them both as good or bad demonstrates how committed you are to that perspective.


Then you are factually wrong Finn and it has nothing to do with the law, but the process that is good or bad.

Obamacare was debated for over a year before it was voted on and passed. Women, men, people of color, different socioeconomic backgrounds, different interest groups, different religions and cultures were ALL invited to participate BEFORE the vote happened. Including republicans. Something like 100 republican amendments to the law itself were implemented.

The PROCESS (not the law itself) is what I'm arguing is bad and COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY different than Obamacare.
Baldimo
 
  -3  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 11:14 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
The PROCESS (not the law itself) is what I'm arguing is bad and COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY different than Obamacare.

Maporsche is fan of the dog and pony show style of politics. Give the appearance of getting input but then go and do what you want anyways...

Here's the truth to the "hundreds of GOP amendments" in the ACA.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/16/luis-gutierrez/rep-gutierrez-says-hundreds-republican-amendments-/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/barack-obama/Obama-says-health-plan-incorporates-ideas-of-Democ/

There is actually very little of the GOP wants or needs in the ACA. Lets not forget they thought we were stupid as well.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/223578-obamacare-architect-lack-of-transparency-helped-law-pass
blatham
 
  4  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 11:29 am
Winner of the week's No ****, Sherlock award. Congratulations!
Quote:
Bill Kristol‏Verified account
@BillKristol
WHOA. Don Jr.'s false statement Sat. was drafted by WH aides & seen by Trump. This wasn't Jr being dopey. This was an attempted WH cover-up.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  4  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 11:47 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

This is a verbatim quote from Trump while appearing on Pat Roberts' 700 Club
Quote:
"It was a great G20. We had 20 countries."



You have to remember that Pat Robert's fan base are the same people who have to look up the number for #911 and believe that the sun revolves around the earth because they think it's in the bible. This might be the first time most of them ever heard about a G20 conference.......unless of course, it's in the bible.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 11:49 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I doubt he could become that fluent in such a short space of time.


Made me laugh.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  4  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 11:57 am
@Baldimo,
The entire backbone of Obamacare is a republican plan!!!

From your link
Quote:
It’s worth noting that many facets of the Republican’s health care agenda at the time made it into the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act was a private market plan, and it dropped a long-held Democratic priority to include a public option.
maporsche
 
  6  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 11:59 am
@Baldimo,
Additionally...whether they were approved or not...they were allowed to be submitted.

How many Democrstic amendments are allowed to be submitted in the Republican plan????
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 12:03 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:

You have to remember that Pat Robert's fan base are the same people who have to look up the number for #911 and believe that the sun revolves around the earth because they think it's in the bible. This might be the first time most of them ever heard about a G20 conference.......unless of course, it's in the bible.

I can feel the hate flow through you... embrace the Dark Side and use your hate.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 12:04 pm
A Jesuit journal close to the Pope says "Manichean vision" is behind Trump.
An article in the influential Rome-based Jesuit publication La Civiltà Cattolica argues "a strange form of surprising ecumenism is developing between Evangelical fundamentalists and Catholic Integralists brought together by the same desire for religious influence in the political sphere" in the United States.
Quote:
In this Manichean vision, belligerence can acquire a theological justification and there are pastors who seek a biblical foundation for it, using the scriptural texts out of context.

Quote:
... a strange form of surprising ecumenism is developing between Evangelical fundamentalists and Catholic Integralists brought together by the same desire for religious influence in the political sphere.

Quote:
An evident aspect of Pope Francis’s geopolitics rests in not giving theological room to the power to impose oneself or to find an internal or external enemy to fight. ... There is a need to flee the temptation to project divinity on political power that then uses it for its own ends
Source and full report (in English): Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism in the USA: A surprising ecumenism


"Building walls instead of bridges is not Christian; this is not in the Gospel." the Pope said.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 12:05 pm
@maporsche,
The left keeps pushing this BS, but only you guys believe it.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 12:06 pm
@maporsche,
Like I said, dog and pony show politics. As long as they give you your show, you will vote for them and anything they offer you. I'm not surprised you like style over substance.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 12:15 pm
@ossobucotemp,
ossobucotemp wrote:

Maybe you were talking about only the government work force that may or well may not live in the city - they probably all have living wages.


I actually was referring to the Republican and Democrat members of Congress who work in DC. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.


Quote:
I'll agree we don't really know about the input the committee got or heard; hard to tell from here.


Perhaps they received none at all (unlikely) or perhaps they decided to ignore all the input they received (also unlikely, but more likely than the other). My point, which you seem to agree with, is that input can be provided, received and acted upon with the providers being in the same room as the legislators.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 12:27 pm
@Baldimo,
And you think Trump has substance?
maporsche
 
  6  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 12:29 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Like I said, dog and pony show politics. As long as they give you your show, you will vote for them and anything they offer you. I'm not surprised you like style over substance.


It's style AND substance that I prefer Baldimo

Have the debates, argue the merits, build a coalition, incorporate other ideas or at least hear them, run the CBO numbers, get input in town hall meetings .... and then vote.

That is how Washington is supposed to work, right?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  5  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 12:31 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

The left keeps pushing this BS, but only you guys believe it.


It's not BS. It's a fact. Republican think tanks developed it.
0 Replies
 
ossobucotemp
 
  2  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 12:40 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
not disagreeing. Natch, I don't know how all of these situations work.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 12:59 pm
@maporsche,
You are laboring to draw a distinction between two processes that are more similar than different, but it is, in any case, of little relevance to the point I raised with you.

Baldimo provided a link that reveals you are factually wrong maporche about the Republican amendments. There...now we've both accused each other of being factually wrong about a subject that is far more about opinion than facts.

The comparison of the process in question and that which led to the passage of the ACA was offered not to debate their equivalency but to acknowledge that your concern over the GOP process is legitimate, if based on ideology and the outcome which you anticipate with concern, however the acknowledgment was in the context of arguing that your implication that there is significance in the fact that the legislators in question are all white males, regardless of what their ideology may be, is at best specious.

You seem to be arguing (it's tough to tell for sure because you have not yet responded to my specific post) that because they are all white, male and rich (the latter a characteristic you added to your original profile) it is reasonable to assume they are currently acting either without any input from people who do not meet their physical and economic profile, or with complete disregard for it.

Maybe you have some way of being certain they've not solicited or received any such input, in which case I hope you will share it, or maybe you know something about rich white men that allows for the assumption that these characteristics incline them to be exclusive and dismissive of any input, and here again, if you do, I hope you will share it. Following that, I would ask you to explain how and why rich white men who happen to be Democrats are not similarly inclined.

You have made a point of identifying these Republicans as rich, white, men and it's perfectly clear that it wasn't just to provide us with some interesting but essentially meaningless background information. You subsequently indicated you don't believe rich white men are incapable of drafting effective legislation (which would have been a whooper of a claim had you made it) but there was, nevertheless, a reason you felt the need to stress their physical and economic characteristics. If you would prefer to argue about the equivalency of examples of Democrat and Republican legislative process and avoid providing a clearer answer to my question, I think I can understand why, but I'm not interested in a discussion of the ACA, the law or the process by which it was passed.

Thanks

blatham
 
  3  
Thu 13 Jul, 2017 01:00 pm
Following after David French's National Review article, "There Is Now Evidence That Senior Trump Officials Attempted to Collude With Russia', here's an interview with French and Sean Illing at Vox
Quote:
David French
I still can't believe that there's an actual email that exists that basically says, "Hey, the Russian government wants to help your dad," and Trump Jr. responds, "Love it." It feels like a bad House of Cards script.

Sean Illing
Say what you will of the Underwoods, they at least have a plan. The Trump administration is just a tornado of incompetence.

David French
Yeah, I guess that’s true. The other thing that’s so dispiriting is watching the legions of Republicans bury their heads in the sand and pretend like this isn’t happening.
Vox
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.42 seconds on 07/08/2024 at 04:15:38