What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Zoupa]

Teach just likes being contrarian. He'll grow out of it. Garbon did and I appreciate him a lot more now.

Love ya G 

[Eddie Teach]

It's been a while since either side was willing to compromise.

That is simply not remotely true, and is self evidently not true.

No wall, no Democrat votes on successful tax bill or failed Obama care overhaul, opposition to every GOP SC pick going back 30 years... Heck, wasn't there a government shutdown over a few hundred million dollars to Planned Parenthood?

Anyway, when there is no successful agreement, it rings hollow to say your side is willing to compromise but the other side wasn't. And there haven't been any major compromises in over a decade.

There has not been any attempt to "overhaul" Obama care. Just a lot of successful attempts to sabotage it outright.

No wall? Are you kidding me? That is how you measure "compromise"?

I was giving examples of them not compromising. You're welcome to give counter-examples.

[garbon]

Teach just likes being contrarian. He'll grow out of it. Garbon did and I appreciate him a lot more now.

Love ya G 

Indeed, I did. Now, I'm just a dour old man.

[Eddie Teach]

Teach just likes being contrarian. He'll grow out of it. Garbon did and I appreciate him a lot more now.

Love ya G 

I prefer objective.

[garbon]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maryanngeorgantopoulos/kellyanne-conway-press-enemy-people-trump

Appearing on CBS's Face The Nation Sunday, Conway said that "a growing swath of reporters" are getting away with saying things on Twitter that would never make it in print, calling those journalists "enemy of the relevant."

"I don't believe journalists are the enemy of the people, I think some journalists are enemy of the relevant, and enemy of the news you can use," Conway said.

[Berkut]

It's been a while since either side was willing to compromise.

That is simply not remotely true, and is self evidently not true.

No wall, no Democrat votes on successful tax bill or failed Obama care overhaul, opposition to every GOP SC pick going back 30 years... Heck, wasn't there a government shutdown over a few hundred million dollars to Planned Parenthood?

Anyway, when there is no successful agreement, it rings hollow to say your side is willing to compromise but the other side wasn't. And there haven't been any major compromises in over a decade.

There has not been any attempt to "overhaul" Obama care. Just a lot of successful attempts to sabotage it outright.

No wall? Are you kidding me? That is how you measure "compromise"?

I was giving examples of them not compromising. You're welcome to give counter-examples.

Obama attempted to do immigration reform. Obama attempted to get the Republicans involved in crafting the ACA. Obama attempting to get bipartisan support his first budget.

[grumbler]

That "successful tax bill" (permanent tax relief for the wealthy, very temporary tax relief for the middle class, encourages inflation, exploded the deficit) wasn't a compromise bill because the Republicans refused to compromise on it.  The only Democratic-sponsored amendment to the Republican bill that was adopted was the one that stopped Betsy DeVoss's Hillsdale College from getting its own special tax break.  Not even Republicans wanted to visibly support that kind of graft.  If the republicans wanted Democratic votes, they needed to compromise.  But, they are Republicans, whose leadership thinks bipartisanship is treason.

[Zoupa]

Teach just likes being contrarian. He'll grow out of it. Garbon did and I appreciate him a lot more now.

Love ya G 

I prefer objective.

Sure little buddy. Sure.

[Solmyr]

Is there a term for "both sides" extremist, the kind of extremist that would say "it takes two to tango" even in the case of Nazis v. Jews?  I've never encountered a good concise one.  I've encountered a number of such people in recent years; some are just conservatives who don't dare to speak their mind, but some are legitimately pathologically allergic to any black and white conclusion.

In Finland we have a term for this, "tolkun ihmiset", which roughly translates to "sensible people", used with sarcasm of course. Used because our President once used this term in a speech while talking about "radicals on both sides" (of the immigration issue).

[PDH]

Obama attempted to do immigration reform. Obama attempted to get the Republicans involved in crafting the ACA. Obama attempting to get bipartisan support his first budget.

"...but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?"

[PDH]

It's been a while since either side was willing to compromise.

That is simply not remotely true, and is self evidently not true.

No wall, no Democrat votes on successful tax bill or failed Obama care overhaul...

Wait, why does there have to be compromise by the minority party on these things anyway?  Both house and senate as well as the executive...why complain about the minority party when the majority party can't get its shit together?

[Eddie Teach]

Obama attempted to do immigration reform. Obama attempted to get the Republicans involved in crafting the ACA. Obama attempting to get bipartisan support his first budget.

Trump wants to do things, too. I'm asking about more concrete offers- we give up this if you give up that.

[bogh]

If only Democrats had given into everything that Republicans demanded with zero concessions, the rural american vote would have swung heavily towards Democrats or centrist Republicans.

Did anybody read the Economist piece on the skew of the US electoral system (https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/07/12/americas-electoral-system-gives-the-republicans-advantages-over-democrats)? Pretty interesting, IMO.

[Eddie Teach]

Wait, why does there have to be compromise by the minority party on these things anyway? 

Because one wants to establish willingness to compromise for an internet argument, I suppose?

[mongers]

If only Democrats had given into everything that Republicans demanded with zero concessions, the rural american vote would have swung heavily towards Democrats or centrist Republicans.

Did anybody read the Economist piece on the skew of the US electoral system (https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/07/12/americas-electoral-system-gives-the-republicans-advantages-over-democrats)? Pretty interesting, IMO.

Bogh, Thanks for the link, I'll read a the rest of it later.

Hope you're doing well, good to see you back on languish.