• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

General political chat

21stamps

Well-Known Member
You said I must not know the GOP very well. So, explain. I can't tell you where my knowledge is murky, so enlighten me. I'm being serious, too.
I explained that. They aren’t in lock step with the president, or with any politicians, or even with a specific “party message” .. this has been shown time and time again. Specific examples- McCain, Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio... I could go on and on.

Voters as well.. if their republican leaders disappoint them- they don’t go out to the polls next time.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
You could go on and on but you're only giving me names without context or examples. Illuminating as always, stamps21.
I thought you were involved in many of the conversations where I’ve brought this up previously, including recently.

My mistake.

I’ll give 3 quick example-

Marco Rubio with any money coming from Florida is Trump requests it.

Lindsey Graham on Trump’s initial decision to pull out of Syria.

Mitt Romney on Trump, and republicans reacting to Mitt Romney.

John McCain not following the party directive to advance the GOP end of Obamacare.
 

Jim S

Well-Known Member
You said I must not know the GOP very well. So, explain. I can't tell you where my knowledge is murky, so enlighten me. I'm being serious, too.

I am with Stamps that republicans are notorious for going against their president and party leadership. John McCain was constantly going against GWBush as well as Trump. His deciding vote to keep Obamacare hurt the entire republican party.
Sen Graham has gone against Trump on foreign policy often but is supporting him on the shut down. Marco Rubio has been very vocal on speaking out against Trump, same with Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Ben Sasse, and just last week Mitt Romney. Murkoski and Collins are often against Trump on issues.

There are other examples in both house and senate but this is just a snap shot of the republicans not marching in lock step. I just gave names not the particular policy differences.

The democrats are much more loyal to their presidents and their leadership. The fact many of them knew the tax cut would help the nation and not one of them would go against leadership to support it was baffling to me.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Thank you. I'd like more, please.
If you look at voting trends, Republicans stay home when they’re upset. This is so common, and it hurts the party.

I joke when I say that I wish we were more group-think.. but I stand by my comment there’s no way in heck that congress and the POTUS are just giving lip service when they say the workers will get paid. There’s not a single doubt in my mind.. I’m shocked that anyone would think differently.
 

Jim S

Well-Known Member
How about they vote to just keep paying the "essential" people as long as this goes on? I mean I know that's not how the protocol of government shutdown theater works, but let's not pretend they actually care about the money and whether the checks get written now or later, the country is 21 trillion dollars in debt.

Maybe you missed it but in the meeting between the president and congressional leaders Trump specifically ask Pelosi and Schumer if we opened up the govt would he get anything for the wall.

Pelosi's answer was "no"-Trump then said the meeting would be a waste of everyone's time.
Wonder why Pelosi didn't take the deal?
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Thanks, Jim. I appreciate it.

I want to know, though, about how 'speaking' out, Twittering, and such has aligned with their votes on the hill. I'm sorry I can't give you a list of examples but it would be interesting to read more than a few. John McCain notwithstanding because I do know about his.
Using Graham as example.. Trump met with him to discuss what he’s doing in Syria. These people aren’t just twittering.. they are talking to the president as well.

When Trump repeatedly told Mitch McConnell to take the nuclear option, Mitch came out and publicly spoke against it.. and didn’t do it, as we all know.
 

OneofThree

Well-Known Member
I am with Stamps that republicans are notorious for going against their president and party leadership. John McCain was constantly going against GWBush as well as Trump. His deciding vote to keep Obamacare hurt the entire republican party.
Sen Graham has gone against Trump on foreign policy often but is supporting him on the shut down. Marco Rubio has been very vocal on speaking out against Trump, same with Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Ben Sasse, and just last week Mitt Romney. Murkoski and Collins are often against Trump on issues.

There are other examples in both house and senate but this is just a snap shot of the republicans not marching in lock step. I just gave names not the particular policy differences.

The democrats are much more loyal to their presidents and their leadership. The fact many of them knew the tax cut would help the nation and not one of them would go against leadership to support it was baffling to me.
Yes because, and once again, the ends justify the means on the left side of the aisle, always. The rational implication is the summary absense of principles.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Clutch the pearls with the typical shock, rather than educate. Oh, what else should I expect. Beggars can't be choosers.
I’ve been giving you examples.. if they’re not the examples you’re asking for, then maybe I don’t understand the question and you could explain it to me.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Trump would take that deal right now-not Pelosi-is she afraid of the radicals in her party?
That is the ONLY reason this is going on right now.

This supposed massive amount of money people are saying should instead be used for this, that, and the other - where the heck are they when it comes to our other spending? This $5B is less than 0.09% of the entire budget (and reportedly Pence tried to broker a deal that would have been for half of even that). Surely, there are worse things in there than extending border fencing for people to mine for their outrage.

Pelosi/Schumer are on the way out and they know it. Pelosi barely hung on to her job as speaker. They know they will get eaten alive by the far-left if they give Trump and inch on the wall and their already numbered days will become even shorter.

It is losing them support every day - and it is hurting the entire party. No one that didn't hate Trump already is going to hate him any more for this.

The democrats, though? They look like complete children here, much like the Republicans did when they were obstructing Obama. The one difference is, I honestly believe that most of those republicans (Romney aside) actually felt strongly about the ACA when they pulled their garbage, but we know for a fact that Pelosi/Schumer aren't actually against what they are supposedly fighting for.

The moment Pelosi mumbled "border walls are immoral..." she totally lost all credibility in my eyes. She doesn't believe that. Only a far-left fringe of the US actually believes that, and a good number of them only because of Trump. Once she made this a moral question and not a budgetary concern, she jumped the shark.

If only for the fact that, when it comes down to it - even his most ardent critics will agree - Trump is nothing if not stubborn as hell. By refusing to negotiate, Pelosi/Schumer are going to lose, one way or another. I have no doubt that Trump will hold out longer than they will be able to. The problem for them, now, is that they will have dragged this out for so long, that their own party will eat them alive because of all the damage that has been done and for giving in (however that happens) to Donald Trump at the same time.

They should have just taken their licks in the beginning and taken that on, because now they will have to answer for the shutdown on top of what they would have lost if they just had given him the money to begin with.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
I haven nothing to explain. I want a laymen's explanation of how many the times these politicans have said one thing to media, social or not, and then gone to vote -- in alignment -- with the President. It's a pretty simple question, I'm shocked that you can't understand.
I just mentioned several examples.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
How about they vote to just keep paying the "essential" people as long as this goes on? I mean I know that's not how the protocol of government shutdown theater works, but let's not pretend they actually care about the money and whether the checks get written now or later, the country is 21 trillion dollars in debt.
If nothing else, the effects of something like this shutdown are exposing just how insanely ridiculous our financial infrastructure and how we pay for everything is utterly ridiculous. I mean, when the shutdown started, various agencies and such weren't even sure what it meant. Cripes, some are still arguing about what comes out of what budget and what should be open and what shouldn't and all the rules about why they can't just dip into reserve funds, etc.

It's such a tangled web that shouldn't be so complicated, surely is wasteful at some level, and we just don't pay any attention to unless something like this happens.
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
Fact: coming here across the border, unchecked, is NOT the same thing as being a legal immigrant.

Fact: my paternal grandparents came here LEGALLY from Mexico. So, you and the other Martyrs for Hispanics can save your lectures as far as that goes.

Fact: Trump isn't even the first one to ask for a buttload of money for border security but now all of the sudden people are all up in arms.

Fact: ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, not the "migrants" you speak of are saving us money at the expense of Americans being unemployed. I guess that big you're talking about is okay when it's being waved at citizens...

Also, what other "actual miltary needs" are you talking about that this could go towards? I've got bros still in and I don't hear any grumbling on their end.

Now, what will I gain? I don't know, I think it will perhaps deter, if not stop some of the issues. Didn't they even show on CNN(his biggest whiny detractor) that it seemed to be working in some spots?

This is on TOP of the fact that throughout the last 15 years, the same cornholes that are jamming Trump on his wall request were supporting the idea of cracking down on illegal immigration and border security. Now all of the sudden it's racist and the "act of a tyrant". So which is it? Didn't Mexico offer asylum to those in the caravan? If they truly marched across Mexico unharmed, why don't they take up that offer? If we're such a laughing stock and we're so racist, why is everyone coming here?

Seriously, there's a line that must be drawn and it runs parallel with Mexico. There's a difference between immigrants and ILLEGAL immigrants.

I'm tired from work so this probably came out jumbled but I don't care.
Wait, are we supposed to be impressed that one set of grandparents came here LEGALLY from Mexico - having nothing to do with you, btw? You just enjoy the fruits of their actions.

All of my grandparents came here LEGALLY from Italy. Does that make me better than anyone else? No. It makes you and me both fortunate. That is all.

Neither of us are any better than anyone born elsewhere, or anyone trying to come here now, legally or illegally.

Let's see how all of our grandparents would have fared if they were just trying to come over today. All those people at the border are or will be somebody's grandparents, God willing. But it's a whole different story now than it was back then.

First: there is no reason the process has to be so difficult and messed up. THAT is the primary problem here. If the line at Publix is too long, they open up another lane. The US Government can't handle that?

If the process were navigable through normal channels, this would not be an issue. That's the fault of people who a) just don't like immigrants or b) don't like Mexicans or c) don't want to let people in who they assume will vote against them.

Border security does not automatically indicate a wall.

Illegal immigrants are hired by someone. Those people are culpable as well. But again, you don't want to pay $4 for an apple, and Americans don't want to pick apples for what illegal immigrants will make. The companies as well as the general public take advantage of those folks for their own gain, but then want to badmouth them to make themselves feel superior. Yay, morals!

"Actual military needs" means they want to divert money from the military to pay for the wall. Maybe your bros don't know what is up, but there are plenty of higher level military personnel who don't want to see that happen. Use your Google.

Oh, "you think" it will deter or stop some issues. Based on..? Your expertise? Let's invest billions on your expert say-so.

Do you wall advocates really think the next president isn't going to dismantle it? It will be the Berlin wall scenario all over again (almost.) But you waste our money and resources now just to feel good about yourselves and superior.

Nobody should feel special about the circumstances of their birth. Not one person had any say in it - not where they were born, not when they were born, not the color of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation, or the wealth of their family.

If one needs to put others down to make themselves feel better, they should seek therapy.

Fix the immigration process. Deny criminals entry. Know that you did nothing to deserve where you live, and neither did they. The end.

I rarely engage with you on any other thread. I don't know why I took the bait here - I guess it was low hanging fruit because it was so easy to answer. Don't expect it to go on very long.
 

Jim S

Well-Known Member
Thanks, Jim. I appreciate it.

I want to know, though, about how 'speaking' out, Twittering, and such has aligned with their votes on the hill. I'm sorry I can't give you a list of examples but it would be interesting to read more than a few. John McCain notwithstanding because I do know about his.

The fact they speak out does influence legislation and policy directions of the leadership and the president. Once the things they advocate for are part of the legislative process then they have no reason to vote against a particular bill. Often bills never get to a vote because of the opposition to the direction of the president. But they do not remain silent and walk in lock step. There are some real policy debates and differences with much of it public and critical of the president as opposed to being hidden behind closed doors.

Rubio held his vote on tax law until more was added for tax credit for families. Murkoski voted against Kavanaugh.
Romney has already said he would not support the president if he declared a National Emergency. Etc.

My point is I see republicans as not always marching in lock step and believe me it is often frustrating to my sense of team play because of my background..

I rarely see any break in the ranks of the democrats and I think politically it works in their favor.
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
The shutdown is now on day 22.

Unemployment insurance is the government program for these situations. If this program is sufficient for the masses,.it should be fine for the government employees.

Internet job boards are great for filing applications. This task can be completed is less than 5 minutes.

As for payback once back pay comes in, so.what? Those affected need funds as quickly as possible, unemployment compensation is.the quickest means to that end. It serves as a bridge loan.

The.fact that some.are overextended and living beyond their means is an individual problem, not mine.
How are government employees not part of "the masses?"

Unemployment insurance is for when you are fired from a job. They were not fired. I'd like to see how that plays out because employers routinely challenge unemployment insurance claims (which they have to pay into) and no employer would say they fired someone when they didn't.

Internet job boards - you're encouraging false applications? Wasting time of local businesses to do interviews for folks that aren't really looking for a job? That would sure tick me off. I don't have hours to waste interviewing people who don't really need a job because they have one making twice what I pay with benefits, because you think they should.

Same thing with your "bridge loans." What about that is ethical and correct?

Keep your judgment about who is living beyond their means. That's baloney.

You folks talking smack about how everyone can just go get a new job in two minutes are hilarious. Then screw the new job over when they get their old job back when the big baby in the Oval Office gets a grip. Yeah, blame the workers.

And you folks identifying with a class you'll never be against those in your own class. You think "government workers" are any different from private sector workers? They all come from the same pool of people, folks, depending on the skill level of the job.

Your attitudes are really out there.
 
Top Bottom