EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4670
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On August 08 2016 02:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I don't know why they'd stop for Hillary; they seem to hate her even more than they loathe Obama Do they really hate her more? Or is it just easier to show your hate because even her own voters dont like her? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On August 08 2016 00:49 Dan HH wrote: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/07/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-election-2016/index.html Kasich confirms the VP offer that trumpeters refused to believe He seems to be confirming that an aide made the claim. "Empty suit" is a great way to describe Ryan. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
If she doesn't, the GOP will carry on with their obstructionist tactics, not giving a shit if they are hurting the country and not even looking if they could agree with what they are voting against. After all that's what they have done for 8 years. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21369 Posts
On August 08 2016 01:54 KwarK wrote: Out of curiousity does anyone expect the Republicans to stop being obstructionist under Hillary? If they are in the position to play full obstructionist I believe it will mean the tea party / freedom party people are still in their seats. And they have shown they will not work with anyone. If more moderate Republicans gain their seats I can see them working together on some basic things but still fight tooth and nail over meaningful social improvements. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On August 08 2016 03:07 Biff The Understudy wrote: Well, a lot of Republican seats are on the down ballots so Hillary may end up with a very comfortable majority. If she doesn't, the GOP will carry on with their obstructionist tactics, not giving a shit if they are hurting the country and not even looking if they could agree with what they are voting against. After all that's what they have done for 8 years. A lot of the non-GH pro-Bernie crowd are working on down-ticket races for exactly that reason; now is a great time to try and take some back some once Republican entrenched seats. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On August 08 2016 03:08 Gorsameth wrote: If they are in the position to play full obstructionist I believe it will mean the tea party / freedom party people are still in their seats. And they have shown they will not work with anyone. If more moderate Republicans gain their seats I can see them working together on some basic things but still fight tooth and nail over meaningful social improvements. I've gotten so frustrated watching that obstructionism and I'm not even part of the country... how does the US government function at all when they behave in such a manner and why do people seem to tolerate that kind of behaviour? I feel if that happened in the Netherlands, we'd just hold a re-election until it is resolved. Maybe it's not as bad as I'm led to believe due to the rather limited view I have, but holy shit some of it just seems ridiculous. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21369 Posts
On August 08 2016 03:45 a_flayer wrote: I've gotten so frustrated watching that obstructionism and I'm not even part of the country... how does the US government function at all when they behave in such a manner and why do people seem to tolerate that kind of behaviour? I feel if that happened in the Netherlands, we'd just hold a re-election until it is resolved. Maybe it's not as bad as I'm led to believe due to the rather limited view I have, but holy shit some of it just seems ridiculous. Some Americans believe that a lock congress is fine because clearly they cannot agree on how to move forward, so it is better to not move at all. However it comes at the cost of urgent measures like the Zika virus now. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 08 2016 03:45 a_flayer wrote: I've gotten so frustrated watching that obstructionism and I'm not even part of the country... how does the US government function at all when they behave in such a manner and why do people seem to tolerate that kind of behaviour? I feel if that happened in the Netherlands, we'd just hold a re-election until it is resolved. Maybe it's not as bad as I'm led to believe due to the rather limited view I have, but holy shit some of it just seems ridiculous. well, the degree of obstructionism had been rising for awhile. It used to be a lot lower, so it used to work fine enough. Also, there's a lot of existing laws and regulations, so not that much truly new stuff is actually needed, and though you don't hear about it as much, there's still some stuff that gets done. some of it is ridiculous, but at least they manage to finish the budgets, sometimes a few months late. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On August 07 2016 10:29 Introvert wrote: Again, there is so much here. But one thing: No pro-life person I know accepts your analogy, for a multitude of reasons. You should try convincing one that someone who leaves to help ISIS or Al Qaeda is the same as an unborn child, I'm sure it will go over well. the pro life vs pro choice argument will never come into agreement until they accept the same base definitions of the arguments made. Pro Life wants to figure out where do we draw the line of what is a person, and should that person be given the same protections as post birth people. Pro Choice believe that its about the health (physical and mental) of the mother. There ZERO ways for there to be discussion until both sides finds a middle ground from where to even start the discussion. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On August 08 2016 04:13 Thieving Magpie wrote: the pro life vs pro choice argument will never come into agreement until they accept the same base definitions of the arguments made. Pro Life wants to figure out where do we draw the line of what is a person, and should that person be given the same protections as post birth people. Pro Choice believe that its about the health (physical and mental) of the mother. There ZERO ways for there to be discussion until both sides finds a middle ground from where to even start the discussion. This has already been defined as 8 weeks. More-over, it was defined by pro-choice people, meaning it's pretty obvious pro-life folk don't actually care about the definition. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States41995 Posts
On August 08 2016 04:33 On_Slaught wrote: The one thing I don't believe Republicans could be obstructionist on is SC seats. They've already said too many times that the next President needs to pick them. When Hillary wins, they will have no choice but to capitulate. No, they meant the next Republican president clearly. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 08 2016 03:01 oBlade wrote: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/762272902045634560 Now when exactly did the far right stop believing that? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21369 Posts
On August 08 2016 04:33 On_Slaught wrote: The one thing I don't believe Republicans could be obstructionist on is SC seats. They've already said too many times that the next President needs to pick them. When Hillary wins, they will have no choice but to capitulate. Hahahahahaha .... Oh wait your not joking? Lets assume they are still able to obstruct the Supreme Court nomination. What tools do exactly exist to force a judge trough? Or could they realistically keep the seat open indefinitely? | ||
|
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On August 08 2016 04:41 LegalLord wrote: Now when exactly did the far right stop believing that? I don't know but I don't think they attack Trump about it. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 08 2016 04:49 Gorsameth wrote: Hahahahahaha .... Oh wait your not joking? Lets assume they are still able to obstruct the Supreme Court nomination. What tools do exactly exist to force a judge trough? Or could they realistically keep the seat open indefinitely? theoretically they could keep the seat open indefinitely. in practice, the public will only put up with it for so long. | ||
| ||
