Trump

[Play Angry]

Remember all those checkmate bill proposals by the Republicans when they were the minority party, and the devastating impact on the Democrats of those "gotchas" from a policy perspective?

Me either. Bill proposals that are dead on arrival won't move any needles.

[jdshock]

Remember all those checkmate bill proposals by the Republicans when they were the minority party, and the devastating impact on the Democrats of those "gotchas" from a policy perspective?

Me either. Bill proposals that are dead on arrival won't move any needles.

Compare this gotcha bill to one that the Republicans proposed.

I'm willing to defend that this is a more strategic proposal because Trump has incessantly talked about infrastructure, he is already prone to criticisms that he is only interested in helping out the highest earners, and some of the base has started to murmur about deficits when he talks about infrastructure and the wall.

And... I dunno about the "devastating impact" but Republicans control all branches of the government right now, so maybe they had more of an effect than you're giving them credit. Look, Democrats have chosen to act with basically no cohesive strategy throughout all of recent memory. This is undoubtedly a smart proposal.

[Play Angry]

Compare this gotcha bill to one that the Republicans proposed.

Nobody remembers any of them, including posters on politics message boards who follow this boring crap closer than 99% of the population. I have no memory of the specifics of any of them, but Republicans certainly passed a bizillion d.o.a. bills in the House during Obama's second term. Nobody gave a darn. That's the point.

I'm willing to defend that this is a more strategic proposal because Trump has incessantly talked about infrastructure, he is already prone to criticisms that he is only interested in helping out the highest earners, and some of the base has started to murmur about deficits when he talks about infrastructure and the wall.

And... I dunno about the "devastating impact" but Republicans control all branches of the government right now, so maybe they had more of an effect than you're giving them credit. Look, Democrats have chosen to act with basically no cohesive strategy throughout all of recent memory. This is undoubtedly a smart proposal.

It's a cute checkmate proposal but what makes you think this would gain any traction outside of the party base? It's not like there is any shortage of policy proposals (both pre and post election) espoused by Trump that provide almost the exact same ammunition to be able to say "your tax cuts disproportionately benefit the highest earners and you are a hypocrite on spending and budget deficits." If team blue is still looking for logical ways to build that argument then God bless their incompetent little hearts.

The opposition party has to do these things to appear productive and look their base in the eye, but it really is a big nothing burger.

[jdshock]

Nobody remembers any of them, including posters on politics message boards who follow this boring crap closer than 99% of the population. I have no memory of the specifics of any of them, but Republicans certainly passed a bizillion d.o.a. bills in the House during Obama's second term. Nobody gave a darn. That's the point.

It's a cute checkmate proposal but what makes you think this would gain any traction outside of the party base? It's not like there is any shortage of policy proposals (both pre and post election) espoused by Trump that provide almost the exact same ammunition to be able to say "your tax cuts disproportionately benefit the highest earners and you are a hypocrite on spending and budget deficits." If team blue is still looking for logical ways to build that argument then God bless their incompetent little hearts.

The opposition party has to do these things to appear productive and look their base in the eye, but it really is a big nothing burger.

That's fine. My position is that it's smart, and it's a more strategic bill than most we've seen in years past. I gave my specific reasoning for why I think this is particularly strategic.

At this point, you're just dismissing it by calling it a "cute" proposal and saying Dems could've already called Trump a hypocrite. I'm willing to have an actual conversation about the subject if you're willing to, but it sounds like you just want to say "it's the same as every single one before" without providing any evidence.

[Play Angry]

That's fine. My position is that it's smart, and it's a more strategic bill than most we've seen in years past. I gave my specific reasoning for why I think this is particularly strategic.

At this point, you're just dismissing it by calling it a "cute" proposal and saying Dems could've already called Trump a hypocrite. I'm willing to have an actual conversation about the subject if you're willing to, but it sounds like you just want to say "it's the same as every single one before" without providing any evidence.

I don't think we disagree that, in a vacuum, a proposal like this one has strategic merit since it tries to emphasize the hypocrisy of legislative moves and proposals made by the party in power.

I also don't think we disagree that, in reality, its impact will be minimal since there have been far more entertaining and lascivious scandals giving ammunition to similar criticisms which have fallen by the wayside under this administration. This is wonk porn that like 2% of the electorate will even notice, and only half of that 2% will care.

What are you looking to debate with particularity? The specifics of their proposal (seems to be what you're angling for), or whether the proposal itself is mostly pointless window dressing (my point)?

[jdshock]

I don't think we disagree that, in a vacuum, a proposal like this one has strategic merit since it tries to emphasize the hypocrisy of legislative moves and proposals made by the party in power.

I also don't think we disagree that, in reality, its impact will be minimal since there have been far more entertaining and lascivious scandals giving ammunition to similar criticisms which have fallen by the wayside under this administration. This is wonk porn that like 2% of the electorate will even notice, and only half of that 2% will care.

What are you looking to debate with particularity? The specific merits of their proposal (seems to be what you're angling for), or whether the proposal itself is mostly pointless window dressing (my point)?

I'm just pointing out that I think this is a particularly good proposal from a party that has shot itself in the foot time and time again over the last six years.

I don't know if it moves the needle. It probably doesn't. But I do think we disagree about what the ceiling of its impact could be. If any of these proposals has a chance to create an effect, I think it's this one. I think there are a lot of folks who are going to completely ignore the more entertaining scandals that I, in all honesty, enjoy far too much. Lots of those folks exist on this board. I'd love to convince ShockdaWorld to vote democrat by talking about Stormy Daniels. Almost nothing would make me happier. But it's not going to happen. Whether it's a porn star confidentiality agreement or a pee tape, I think many Trump voters are mostly unwilling to change their vote based on his personal actions. I personally think this proposal attacks Trump where he is legitimately the most vulnerable. If democrats try to win midterms by saying your $1,000 bonus is basically nothing, they're going to get blown out. If they start to shift their focus to the middle class by saying "we proposed X bill that would've benefited the middle class in this way," they're going to do a lot better.

A 2% swing across the board probably nets Clinton the 2016 election. As a biased liberal, I'm just saying this is a promising step forward.

[ShockdaWorld]

To be honest I haven’t been reading this forum in quite some time, so I’m not sure what this exact comment is about. That being said, yes, I was raised Republican and have probably voted that way on a majority of issues, but I am not going to put my head in the sand and just vote republican because it’s republican. I’m not a trump supporter and was certainly not a hillary supporter. I don’t believe either of them had/has any concern whatsoever for the American people, specially the middle class. I have and will continue to vote for whoever I feel is most able to convince me that they actually care about “We the people” and are willing to do something about it, regardless of where their political alliances may lie.

[jdshock]

ShockdaWorld, my mistake. I think I was thinking of ShockingButTrue, our most ardent Trump supporter.

[ShockingButTrue]

How intuitive you are indeed. She never called me a racist. Are we to "Plan D" now? Keep hope alive.

But I sincerely thank you for not calling me a bigot, homophobe, deplorable, etc. etc... yet. Even though you probably believe that. And yet you still can't believe that he beat that hag fair and square huh?

[wufan]

Democrats are proposing an infrastructure plan that I think is really an incredibly strategic proposal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.567777870cb9

Generally, they're saying get rid of the tax cuts on the highest earners, get rid of the corporate tax cut, and leave the middle class tax cuts. Use the revenue to fund a trillion dollar infrastructure plan. Trump has been talking non-stop about infrastructure, and when Republicans oppose the plan it makes them look like (1) they're only interested in tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and (2) they're not serious about curbing the deficit.

The Republicans AREN’T serious about reducing the deficit (sadly). They pissed and moaned about it when the Dems were in power. Now that the Republicans are in power we get nada.

Similarly the Dems did NOTHING about gun control when they were in power. Now that they wield no power, it’s the fault of the Republicans!

[jdshock]

The Republicans AREN’T serious about reducing the deficit (sadly). They pissed and moaned about it when the Dems were in power. Now that the Republicans are in power we get nada.

Similarly the Dems did NOTHING about gun control when they were in power. Now that they wield no power, it’s the fault of the Republicans!

I really dislike this argument, but Trump is a big fan. Dems were in control for two years. They spent those two years passing healthcare. You don't get to say "haha! They must not care about X because they chose to pass something else while they had power!" Moreover, they DID try to pass two gun control measures once they got the chance. It's all about picking your battles. Do you really think dems would vote against it today?

Most importantly, though, they are uniquely different. Gun control is a specific policy. The deficit is an overarching philosophy used to block all of the dems' proposals. Saying you didn't prioritize a specific policy when you had a chance is totally different from blocking bills by yelling about the deficit and now ballooning it more than dems ever did.

[Play Angry]

Eh, ACA passed the House in November 2009, the Senate in December 2009, was amended and finalized in March 2010 and signed into law in March 2010. After the first 11+ months of the 111th Congress, the remaining work over the last 3 months on the bill was carried by a tiny fraction of congressmen and senators.

Saying all they had time for was Obamacare is a bit like claiming all the Republicans had time for in the 115th Congress is the tax bill and nothing else. Neither is correct.

[wufan]

I really dislike this argument, but Trump is a big fan. Dems were in control for two years. They spent those two years passing healthcare. You don't get to say "haha! They must not care about X because they chose to pass something else while they had power!" Moreover, they DID try to pass two gun control measures once they got the chance. It's all about picking your battles. Do you really think dems would vote against it today?

Most importantly, though, they are uniquely different. Gun control is a specific policy. The deficit is an overarching philosophy used to block all of the dems' proposals. Saying you didn't prioritize a specific policy when you had a chance is totally different from blocking bills by yelling about the deficit and now ballooning it more than dems ever did.

This wasn’t an argument, just two statements. One disappoints me, the other does not.

[jdshock]

Eh, ACA passed the House in November 2009, the Senate in December 2009, was amended and finalized in March 2010 and signed into law in March 2010. After the first 11+ months of the 111th Congress, the remaining work over the last 3 months on the bill was carried by a tiny fraction of congressmen and senators.

Saying all they had time for was Obamacare is a bit like claiming all the Republicans had time for in the 115th Congress is the tax bill and nothing else. Neither is correct.

Eh... that's not really how politics work. With the House, you get about a year to pass your controversial bills and then they're back to campaigning. Additionally, Obama was touted as this anti-gun, socialist from Kenya. He didn't touch gun issues in those first four years. It would've killed him politically. It's a time and priority thing. You can't spend every cycle passing controversial bill after controversial bill. Obamacare was one of the most controversial bills in recent history. The Dems couldn't fight the gun battle after passing healthcare. In hindsight, they got wrecked in the midterms anyway, and they may have chosen to pursue the issue if they'd known that. Republicans got their tax plan. It's March in an election year. They may get DACA or infrastructure since those have the potential to be slightly bipartisan. They're quickly running out of time to pursue anything majorly controversial, though.

My argument is that it's absolutely ridiculous to act like Dems not passing significant gun control measures from 2008-2016 is anywhere near the level of hypocrisy that Republicans are showing with the deficit. Tell me which of these points is wrong:

(A) Dems had two years to pass controversial bills. One of those years was eaten up by Obamacare. The second was an election year where the Dems got crushed.
(B) Even if something isn't priority issue #1, it can still be a policy goal. Guns may be 5th on the list for Dems, but that doesn't mean Dems are at fault for not passing gun legislation. Republicans are still the one opposing those measures. When you finally do get around to proposing legislation, the Republicans block it. It's absolutely asinine to act like it's the Dems fault. If Republicans are going to block gun control legislation because they believe in the issue, then own up to it. Why would you ever say "you had your chance and you missed it!" Be proud that you want to keep AR-15's and bump stocks and gun shows.
(C) They're fundamentally different. Republicans are acting like they're similar, but that's just not true. Reduction of the deficit is an overarching philosophy. It'd be like if Dems blocked every Republican proposal by saying "we've got to think about the class implications" or "we need to focus on race issues" or whatever, and then they passed a tax plan that prioritized the rich or something. Not passing a bill and wanting to pass it now is not hypocritical. Public opinion, priorities, etc. all change. Blocking key legislation and winning elections on basis of the deficit, and then growing the deficit during times of economic growth is disastrous, hypocritical, and should be rewarded by voting each of those members out of congress.

[jdshock]

This wasn’t an argument, just two statements. One disappoints me, the other does not.

It may not have been an argument, but you put forth an argument. You said the Dems not passing guns was similar to Republicans turning their back on deficit reduction. I pointed out that they're completely dissimilar.

[wufan]

It may not have been an argument, but you put forth an argument. You said the Dems not passing guns was similar to Republicans turning their back on deficit reduction. I pointed out that they're completely dissimilar.

What I was trying to point out is how the minority’s party pisses and moans about what ISN’T happening. You can pick your topic.

[Play Angry]

Eh... that's not really how politics work. With the House, you get about a year to pass your controversial bills and then they're back to campaigning. Additionally, Obama was touted as this anti-gun, socialist from Kenya. He didn't touch gun issues in those first four years. It would've killed him politically. It's a time and priority thing. You can't spend every cycle passing controversial bill after controversial bill. Obamacare was one of the most controversial bills in recent history. The Dems couldn't fight the gun battle after passing healthcare. In hindsight, they got wrecked in the midterms anyway, and they may have chosen to pursue the issue if they'd known that. Republicans got their tax plan. It's March in an election year. They may get DACA or infrastructure since those have the potential to be slightly bipartisan. They're quickly running out of time to pursue anything majorly controversial, though.

Rich lecture coming from the guy who came on here yesterday desperately seeking a handjob from a conservative-leaning readership for the democrats' proposing a go-nowhere bill just because the proposal doesn't reek of stupidity. Yes, Congress has a habit of doing nothing in election years. They also have a remarkable track record of doing very little in non-election years. Saying somebody doesn't have time to do something is very different from admitting it's politically expedient for them to choose to do nothing during the latter 50% of their elected period. You said they didn't have time for anything else. Clearly, they did and chose not to tackle anything substantive given how badly they botched shepherding the healthcare bill across the finish line.

My argument is that it's absolutely ridiculous to act like Dems not passing significant gun control measures from 2008-2016 is anywhere near the level of hypocrisy that Republicans are showing with the deficit. Tell me which of these points is wrong:

(A) Dems had two years to pass controversial bills. One of those years was eaten up by Obamacare. The second was an election year where the Dems got crushed.

Addressed above.

(B) Even if something isn't priority issue #1, it can still be a policy goal. Guns may be 5th on the list for Dems, but that doesn't mean Dems are at fault for not passing gun legislation. Republicans are still the one opposing those measures. When you finally do get around to proposing legislation, the Republicans block it. It's absolutely asinine to act like it's the Dems fault. If Republicans are going to block gun control legislation because they believe in the issue, then own up to it. Why would you ever say "you had your chance and you missed it!" Be proud that you want to keep AR-15's and bump stocks and gun shows.

Sounds very shrill. Can you please point me to specific proposals supported by a majority of democrats favoring bans on AR-15s and the like? I do think we are heading towards consensus measures on bump stocks and other limitations. Fact remains that the dems had a window in 2008-10 to achieve meaningful gun control legislation without bipartisan support and elected to (1) pursue other priorities for the first 11 months, and (2) not touch it during the back half of their respective terms because, despite knowing they were headed for a wave election (and not in their favor), they must have thought it was for the greater good to avoid passing related measures and instead focus on campaigning.

(C) They're fundamentally different. Republicans are acting like they're similar, but that's just not true. Reduction of the deficit is an overarching philosophy. It'd be like if Dems blocked every Republican proposal by saying "we've got to think about the class implications" or "we need to focus on race issues" or whatever, and then they passed a tax plan that prioritized the rich or something. Not passing a bill and wanting to pass it now is not hypocritical. Public opinion, priorities, etc. all change. Blocking key legislation and winning elections on basis of the deficit, and then growing the deficit during times of economic growth is disastrous, hypocritical, and should be rewarded by voting each of those members out of congress.

The dems are voting against every Republican measure at the moment, mirroring the Republicans' approach under Obama. You are in the fight of your life to get someone to engage with you on why the reasons are worse for one side or the other, but taking a step back it's clear that neither side has much of an ideological anchor and will simply oppose the other's proposals en masse as a means of obstruction for whatever reason can be cited most conveniently. Trying to frame this as some sort of Marvel comics good vs. evil scenario to enhance the confidence in your worldview is something most people on both sides do, but it's also wrong and a giant oversimplification.

The mid-terms in November might meaningfully change the current balance of power. Will be interesting to see.

[jdshock]

Rich lecture coming from the guy who came on here yesterday desperately seeking a handjob from a conservative-leaning readership for the democrats' proposing a go-nowhere bill just because the proposal doesn't reek of stupidity.

Lol... what? If I wanted a circle jerk would I really post on this forum? All you've got to do is post URANIUM ONE and you get five likes from the Trump supporters. And I'm the one looking for affirmation? I mean... what? If me and two other posters stopped participating, it would honestly just be conservatives.

Yes, Congress has a habit of doing nothing in election years. They also have a remarkable track record of doing very little in non-election years. Saying somebody doesn't have time to do something is very different from admitting it's politically expedient for them to choose to do nothing during the latter 50% of their elected period. You said they didn't have time for anything else. Clearly, they did and chose not to tackle anything substantive given how badly they botched shepherding the healthcare bill across the finish line.

I am getting more confused as I go through the post, honestly. I said they spent those two years on healthcare. That's accurate. They had one shot at a controversial, big bill, and they spent it on health care. I wasn't talking about hours in a day or whatever. I'm talking about political capital, about their focus, about their willingness to tie their name to a bill that 50% of the public is going to hate. The folks opposed to the ACA hated it far more than folks like me hate the tax cuts. They put their eggs in the ACA basket. They shot their load. I don't know what other euphemisms will get my point across.

Sounds very shrill. Can you please point me to specific proposals supported by a majority of democrats favoring bans on AR-15s and the like? I do think we are heading towards consensus measures on bump stocks and other limitations. Fact remains that the dems had a window in 2008-10 to achieve meaningful gun control legislation without bipartisan support and elected to (1) pursue other priorities for the first 11 months, and (2) not touch it during the back half of their respective terms because, despite knowing they were headed for a wave election (and not in their favor), they must have thought it was for the greater good to avoid passing related measures and instead focus on campaigning.

First of all, what sounds shrill? We're on a message board. I don't get the hostility. You're spending your free time, presumably at work or in Florida, responding to a political post on a basketball forum.

Second of all, Dems also had those two years to address rampant wealth disparity, fix social security, and lock down world peace, but they didn't do those either. The argument is that you don't have to have it be priority 1 for it still to be the other side's fault. If it's issue #5 for Dems but blocking it is issue #1 for the Republicans, it's not the Dems fault. Who is blocking gun regulations at this point in time? It's not the Dems. If Republicans want to block gun control measures, that's totally fine. But you don't get to throw your hands in the air and say "Dems didn't do it in 2008, so now we're all stuck. Better blame the Democrats." That's just utter nonsense.

The dems are voting against every Republican measure at the moment, mirroring the Republicans' approach under Obama. You are in the fight of your life to get someone to engage with you on why the reasons are worse for one side or the other, but taking a step back it's clear that neither side has much of an ideological anchor and will simply oppose the other's proposals en masse as a means of obstruction for whatever reason can be cited most conveniently. Trying to frame this as some sort of Marvel comics good vs. evil scenario to enhance the confidence in your worldview is something most people on both sides do, but it's also wrong and a giant oversimplification.

The mid-terms in November might meaningfully change the current balance of power. Will be interesting to see.

I honestly have no idea how this responds to my point that it is more hypocritical to turn your back on overarching philosophical beliefs than the allegation that the Dems failed to pass a gun control measure 10 years ago that they like today.