Hey, conservatives... You WON! ... ... by Bob Nelson
You didn't just win a little bit... You won everything!
You have the Presidency.
You have both Houses of Congress.
You already have the Supreme Court, and will soon lock it down definitively.
You can do anything you want to do!
Anything!!
So...
What are you going to do?
I read a lot of news and commentary. I keep looking for "Republican policy propositions".
We've had a few:
- end Muslim immigration
- a wall on the Mexican border
- a healthcare plan
- infrastructure... maybe... or has that volatilized?
I'm disappointed by the rarity of anything concrete. The new head of the EPA seems decided to roll back a lot of stuff... but I haven't seen any details. We have a fine new Cabinet, full of generals and Wall Street bankers... but nothing seems to be happening.
So I'm asking our NT Conservatives about their intentions for our little NT world:
Will you continue to attack Dems/liberals/socialism/... as you have continued to do since the elections... kinda like you don't know how to do anything else... or will you someday begin to discuss... umm... you know... governing??
Tags
Who is online
94 visitors
GOP officeholders have purposefully done nothing whatsoever during the eight years of Mr Obama's administration. That was their strategy. OK. I get that.
But now what?
Long before the election, I tried to get our NT Conservatives to make some propositions for actually doing stuff... without much success. Maybe the idea of "doing" was incomprehensible with an alien Black atheist socialist Muslim foreigner in the White House.
But hey!! Don't you think it is time to start governing?
But hey!! Don't you think it is time to start governing?
What do you call putting a freeze on federal govt hiring ? Or does the federal deficit not matter ?
That's something, for sure. But IMHO it's a bit short for a program.
IMHO it's a bit short for a program.
One has to start somewhere ...
One has to start somewhere ...
Of course. But surely... that's not the entirety of a conservative's program? Eight years of "no hiring"? That's all there is?
If "no hiring" is "just a start"... then what comes next? What is the program?
...... 'time to start governing.' But, but, but, its' so hard!
Who would have guessed that it's so complicated??
Anyone who has actually been governing. Liar Ted did manage to get through 'Green Eggs and Ham', though.
Please, people!! You're going to discourage our fine NT Conservatives.
Just because they haven't posted much in the way of policy over the
past year,past few years, since the Bush administration, doesn't mean they have no detailed policies to propose.Right?
The "policy of no" morphed into the "policy of we don't know how". You can obstruct for only so long before you forget how to do your actual job.
It is not really true that they can do whatever they want. As far as we know, the filibuster rule in the Senate will continue, which means that most new legislation needs 60 votes in the Senate and the Republicans only 52 seats. Given the extreme partisanship in Congress nowadays, big new programs (for example infrastructure, or comprehensive immigration laws), will need Democratic support.
If the Dems do any serious filibustering, the Republicans will change the rules.
The Democrats gained seats in both House and the Senate in 2016 and Trump, but more Ryan, is making it much more likely they will pick up many more in 2018. It might be smart for the Democrats to bide their time until then. They are going to need all of their fight because Ruth Bader Ginsburg is bound to want to retire, especially if the Democrats regain control of the Senate. Difficult (they have more seats to defend then the GOP) but Ryan and Trump seem determined to help.
Unless the Dems take both the Senate and the Presidency for the next several election cycles, the Supreme Court is going to be Republican for a very long time. The GOP has shown that it will do anything to to prevent prevent a justice being appointed by a Dem.
Once Gorsuch is aboard, a conservative majority is constituted. Replacing Ginsburg with a progressive would not change the majority.
Not necessarily. Roberts himself has shown some independence and Kennedy has been a swing vote several times such as in cases that involved gay marriage and the ACA. Plus there is always the possibility of Thomas retiring. Still this was the court that voted on the disastrous Citizens United case. As for that it's up to Congress to fashion a new law that counteracts that effect and will pass muster with the Constitution.
Citizens United
That's what I said. But gay rights. ACA.
Half full or half empty I guess...
Beats drowning.
Besides I don't look at the glass as half full or half empty. I just look at it as time to order another drink.
Personally, I like it when no one is governing. They do less harm that way.
You favor anarchy, then?
I'm still exploring that. At the moment, I prefer a minimal state, something proposed in Robert Nozick's book Anarchy, State and Utopia.
Ok.
How do we get there from here?
Who decides what services would remain?
Who decides what services would remain?
Who decides now? It certainly doesn't seem to be you and me.
Just imagine any other scenario where those receiving/paying for the services are the ones who decide. What do you see? Invision a world where there are no nation-states as we know them, but communities living as they wish and thriving, or not.
I can't give you a road map to there. I haven't met with a burning bush that will give me a full blown way to get there. What I do know is this: I don't like the system as it is. I don't like that people want government to do for them what they should do themselves. I don't like the fact the people don't know/care about history and won't think for themselves.
How do we get there from here? Perhaps the same way the the original inhabitants of Turtle Island did, we wander in and see what's there.
So... You have an ideal, but no real-world implementation.
Perhaps my ideal is an acre in the mountains with no neighbors and no government telling me I can't live the way I choose as long as I hurt no one. Is that too much idealism?
Do you not have ideals, nothing to which to aspire. Or are you happy with system as it is?
I also have an idea of what the world should be. But I also know a mechanism for getting there. (Not that I delude myself into imagining that my ideas will become reality any time soon.)
It appears to me (from afar, so according to at least one NT member I'm not entitled to "Speak my Mind") that any American who announces that Trump is not his/her president has already chosen the path to anarchy.
No Red Rules on this one, Buzz.
"any American who announces that Trump is not his/her president has already chosen the path to anarchy"
Or psychosis.
IMHO Donald Trump is a turned Russian asset and is therefore not my President.
Too bad that reality requires evidence that doesn't exist only in your mind....
The FBI investigation continues.....and so far there is evidence that the Russians were definitely involved in trying to influence the election. Now the only question is which Trump associates were colluding with the Russians and how deep was Trump involved. I believe he is in it up to his neck and sinking fast. My money says he drowns. I'll be happy to throw him an anvil to help.
so far there is evidence that the Russians were definitely involved in trying to influence the election.
By all means enlighten the rest of us about this "definite" evidence ...
Works for me.
The NYT is a proven falsifier of info . It has a strongly liberal bias in all reporting & should not be taken as factual w/o backup evidence . This was the rag that reported the myth that many women are subject to beatings on Superbowl Sunday based on some lies by feminists . Fortunately that was debunked by other more objective media ...
Personally, I like it when no one is governing.
Well then you must be ecstatic these days because NO ONE is governing.
They do less harm that way.
I would disagree that no harm is being caused by the way this group is NOT governing. You seem to be stuck in the 70's. I suggest putting the joint down. lol
Well then you must be ecstatic these days because NO ONE is governing.
If that were true then why is there so much animosity towards Trump ?
If that were true then why is there so much animosity towards Trump ?
Well my animosity has always been there so I'm not a good one to measure it by BUT I would offer from reading many of the other member's comments that maybe there is animosity towards Trump and his band of idiots BECAUSE there is no governing happening only self inflicted wounds one tweet at a time.
Didn't really smoke a lot, much preferred psychedelics. The 70's I am "stuck" in would be the 1670's.
Do you believe that the more laws Congress passes the better off we are?