You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
But where did they hear McCain say that? No link in the article. What does "suggested" mean?
I disagree with those 3 if true, but not Cruz. Voting 'no' isn't obstructionism. There is no candidate Trump will nominate that Elizabeth Warren will vote 'yes' on. She's not obstructing anything. She has an obligation to vote how she feels right. But a refusal to hold a vote or an unwavering filibuster would be. See the difference?
I want the filibuster to stay. I think it's an important tool, and one that should be used sparingly. There are ways to overcome it with a 2/3 majority if a few rogue Senators went bonkers.
If the GOP tried to pass a law barring all federal use of Affirmative Action, should the Dems filibuster to prevent its passing? Most Democrats would say yes. At that point the GOP knows there is no way to pass the bill short of using the nuclear option. So if they decided against going nuclear, yet included that law in every bill they put forward, is it fair to call the DNC obstructionist? I would say no.
Was it obstructionist when Harry Reid refused to allow a single republican bill get a vote during his 6 years as majority leader under Obama? (As I am typing this, Krauthammer just made the exact argument on TV)
So be willing to move and understand everything can't be a deal breaker. Quid quo pro. Hillary was a master of this and that's why I voted for her. But Democrats lost. They need to accept that and choose what's really important and feasible for them and come to the table willing to trade. This desire has been my sole driving force this election. I hope the GOP can pull it off.
We're never going to agree on this. I even showed you the reason it was intentional obstructionism, because a few even admitted to it. I'm saying that dems should act exactly like the repubs did, and if you feel they did nothing wrong then it won't be an issue.
The protests are fine, but too bad the kids in Philly couldn't muster the energy to get out last night like they did tonight.
Re: US Politics Thread
faldor wrote:bigbri wrote:One of the first things Donald Trump should do is try to get marijuana and all drugs legalized across the country and end the ridiculous war on drugs. Then, regulate them.
I'm serious. You kill a lot of problems doing it. Think of the revenue stream, for one. And you decrease the prison population, which strains taxpayers. You also don't turn an entire generation of young drug users into criminals. Plus, it would fuck with Mexico's drug cartels.
It's a win all around. Can't believe it has never happened.
It's why I supported Gary Johnson. He leans this direction but doesn't go as far as what I described above.
I absolutely agree with you there. Not sure it'll happen. Lots of people still have it in their minds that marijuana is this evil illegal drug, so I'm not sure it'd be such an easy thing to do. But I don't really see the downside. People who want to smoke pot are going to smoke it whether it's legal or not, might as well capitalize on it.
I'm not just talking pot, man. All drugs. The war on drugs might be the biggest mistake a president has made in quite some time.
I missed that part. I'm not so sure I'd be for legalizing all drugs. Some of that shit can get dangerous. Let's start with marijuana, see how that goes, and we can reevaluate.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:But where did they hear McCain say that? No link in the article. What does "suggested" mean?
I disagree with those 3 if true, but not Cruz. Voting 'no' isn't obstructionism. There is no candidate Trump will nominate that Elizabeth Warren will vote 'yes' on. She's not obstructing anything. She has an obligation to vote how she feels right. But a refusal to hold a vote or an unwavering filibuster would be. See the difference?
I want the filibuster to stay. I think it's an important tool, and one that should be used sparingly. There are ways to overcome it with a 2/3 majority if a few rogue Senators went bonkers.
If the GOP tried to pass a law barring all federal use of Affirmative Action, should the Dems filibuster to prevent its passing? Most Democrats would say yes. At that point the GOP knows there is no way to pass the bill short of using the nuclear option. So if they decided against going nuclear, yet included that law in every bill they put forward, is it fair to call the DNC obstructionist? I would say no.
Was it obstructionist when Harry Reid refused to allow a single republican bill get a vote during his 6 years as majority leader under Obama? (As I am typing this, Krauthammer just made the exact argument on TV)
So be willing to move and understand everything can't be a deal breaker. Quid quo pro. Hillary was a master of this and that's why I voted for her. But Democrats lost. They need to accept that and choose what's really important and feasible for them and come to the table willing to trade. This desire has been my sole driving force this election. I hope the GOP can pull it off.
We're never going to agree on this. I even showed you the reason it was intentional obstructionism, because a few even admitted to it. I'm saying that dems should act exactly like the repubs did, and if you feel they did nothing wrong then it won't be an issue.
The protests are fine, but too bad the kids in Philly couldn't muster the energy to get out last night like they did tonight.
That is my point on the protests. They protest after not showing up to vote. Plus he won fair and square. I am fine with protests but it looks silly in this case.
Re: US Politics Thread
I saw one of the protestors interviewed & it was just embarrassingly silly. Just a random 20 year old with nothing else to do. She wasn't even much of an upset Hillary supporter either. When they asked her about Hillary saying let's do this calmly she said "So what. I'm not for Hillary either" and then rambled on about how its all a conspiracy to keep the cops there to bring the people down.
Like, wtf. I said some pretty dumb things when I was 20, and got upset over petty issues, but I don't think I was that bad. Anyway, teenagers should never be interviewed for their opinions on TV. I think the millenials are pushing that number up to more like 25.
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:But where did they hear McCain say that? No link in the article. What does "suggested" mean?
I disagree with those 3 if true, but not Cruz. Voting 'no' isn't obstructionism. There is no candidate Trump will nominate that Elizabeth Warren will vote 'yes' on. She's not obstructing anything. She has an obligation to vote how she feels right. But a refusal to hold a vote or an unwavering filibuster would be. See the difference?
I want the filibuster to stay. I think it's an important tool, and one that should be used sparingly. There are ways to overcome it with a 2/3 majority if a few rogue Senators went bonkers.
If the GOP tried to pass a law barring all federal use of Affirmative Action, should the Dems filibuster to prevent its passing? Most Democrats would say yes. At that point the GOP knows there is no way to pass the bill short of using the nuclear option. So if they decided against going nuclear, yet included that law in every bill they put forward, is it fair to call the DNC obstructionist? I would say no.
Was it obstructionist when Harry Reid refused to allow a single republican bill get a vote during his 6 years as majority leader under Obama? (As I am typing this, Krauthammer just made the exact argument on TV)
So be willing to move and understand everything can't be a deal breaker. Quid quo pro. Hillary was a master of this and that's why I voted for her. But Democrats lost. They need to accept that and choose what's really important and feasible for them and come to the table willing to trade. This desire has been my sole driving force this election. I hope the GOP can pull it off.
We're never going to agree on this. I even showed you the reason it was intentional obstructionism, because a few even admitted to it. I'm saying that dems should act exactly like the repubs did, and if you feel they did nothing wrong then it won't be an issue.
The protests are fine, but too bad the kids in Philly couldn't muster the energy to get out last night like they did tonight.
That is my point on the protests. They protest after not showing up to vote. Plus he won fair and square. I am fine with protests but it looks silly in this case.
I will never say it was fair with wikileaks and the FBI, which was incredibly wrong and shady and intentional to sway the election, and did IMO. And it wouldn't have been fair had it happened to Trump. I didn't think the video was fair, tbh, but that's what it is.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
I saw one of the protestors interviewed & it was just embarrassingly silly. Just a random 20 year old with nothing else to do. She wasn't even much of an upset Hillary supporter either. When they asked her about Hillary saying let's do this calmly she said "So what. I'm not for Hillary either" and then rambled on about how its all a conspiracy to keep the cops there to bring the people down.
Like, wtf. I said some pretty dumb things when I was 20, and got upset over petty issues, but I don't think I was that bad. Anyway, teenagers should never be interviewed for their opinions on TV. I think the millenials are pushing that number up to more like 25.
Lol.. I saw some real gems tonight. If they didn't sound so fucking stupid maybe I could take them more serious.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in Louisiana, tweeted “God Bless WikiLeaks” early Wednesday, shortly after Donald Trump won the presidential election.
Please don't tell Ben Carson or Omarosa.
Re: US Politics Thread
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ … ion-214439
Great article here.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
