Conservative National Review warns GOP "Governing is a Trap"

Unfortunately, 395 of those are to repeal ACA.

One of the talking watermelons on Fox News last night said the republicans should keep sending repeal bills to the President until he gets sick of it and signs one. Maybe they figure he'd sign it by accident.

I think that's the definition of "strategery".

 

post deleted

 

All this talk of butthurt... Maybe people on this board don't remember the hateful and flat out un-American posts directed towards the executive office when Obama was reelected.

 

Do you think the GOP was elected to work with Obama?

 

Of course they should ignore it. This isn't a parliamentary system. And the Republicans are still the stupid party, with stupid policies.

Do you actually think climate change is now not real because of the midterms?

 

It's actually only 50 repeal/defund/whatever Obamacare.

"only" 50.

 

According to some looney news outlets, it was!

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jon-stewart-new-gop-congress-gridlock

It's not often that Jon Stewart is fazed by a politician's sound bite, but fresh overtures of "bi-partisanship" from an emboldened GOP had him reeling on Wednesday night.

"Look, the Republicans had the Senate, governorships, and everything else," the host of "The Daily Show" said, summing up the party's midterm sweep. "I imagine the first order of business is 'rightward ho!'"

But then came a series of clips of high-profile Republicans preaching the gospel of "bi-partisanship," including Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

"Just because we have a two-party system doesn't mean we have to be in perpetual conflict," McConnell said in a clip from Wednesday.

Stewart looked dumbfounded. "Who the **** are you people?" he asked to laughter from the audience.

"I gotta tell you, that sound bite would have been better not coming from the guy who for six years has been one of the sole owners and operators of this country's Perpetual Conflictinators," he added.

 

They are couching and posturing. It's not what you say, it's what you do.

I said in the other thread, GOP legislators don't have to do anything. Life is pretty good for the guys that bought them the spot, and they can blame any hot button social issues they can't influence on Obama/Hillary (Obillery now?)...win/win.

Lifetime easy street, copypasta bills, photo ops and sound bites, money for nothing, chicks for free

 

...said the average voter...never

 

Lol!!! Man are the libs mad at the rebuke they just received. :grin:

 

I wouldn't qualify as a "lib," nor would I consider a mid-term election going as predicted to be much to be angry about as much as the dysfunctional political climate that surrounded it and awaits us in the near future.

 

It's hard not to be a liberal if you support Elizabeth warren.

 

No one really cares.

 

Not everyone who likes the NBA is a Laker or Celtics fan. And not everyone in the United States who votes is a "liberal" or a "conservative."

 

That is true, but if you support Ted Cruz you can't argue you aren't a tea partier and if you support Elizabeth warren you can't say you aren't a liberal.

 

People vote what they do for a variety of reasons. There are many single issue voters in the US, particularly where it concerns second amendment and reproductive rights and the stance of any candidate on those issues, if it appeals to their pet cause, is enough to ignore everything else about them.

I don't know if you actually voted in the last election, but there were four political parties on my ballot. I don't particularly like any of them, but I made an effort to read the LWV guide first, make them actually earn my vote based on their answers to the questions they are given, and vet them further via google. I believe in good governance over political ideals and wonks with specific policy details over grandiose flag-waving and ass-kissing.

There is no point voting my political ideals, because there are no candidates that reflect them, and even if I found one that did, it doesn't necessarily follow that a great philosopher or political theorist I really liked would be the best for the job as an elected official (or that they would have the political capital to realize them). It demands a very different criteria, and I do my best to make a responsible and informed decision.

As a voter my job is to hire someone to work for me and I take it seriously. They are our employees, and their job is to work for all of us. I'm not going to discriminate if they are a Green or a Libertarian or a Socialist or Constitutionalist, much less a Democrat or Republican. I'm only concerned with their positions on issues that directly affect the job they are seeking and their overall competency for that job.

If I'm voting for a president, my main concern is the kind of Supreme Court Justices he or she is likely to appoint. That trumps everything else as far as the power any single president has in office to directly affect my life. My second concern are their main campaign contributors, because that's who they will be beholden to if they get elected.

I don't care about their religion, their endorsements, their spouses, how witty their jokes are, how good they look on camera, how well they play the saxophone or ride horses, if they are fat or thin or did drugs in college or inhaled or snorted or blew the whole football team, because none of those things are going to affect how they do the job they are wanting me to hire them for.

If I'm voting for a county judge, I'm not so concerned about their stance on issues, especially culture war crap, but their devotion to principles of the rule of law, and showing a restraint from allowing their own partiality affect a decision that requires impartial judgement. Other than that, I tend to the strong side of anti-prohibitionism and anti-authoritarianism. Those things make me vote often for Libertarians for judge seats, even if I don't share their enthusiasm for the Cult of the Invisible Hand -- their economic views are not particularly relevant to their job.

I could go on, but I think you get my point.

 

The GOP was elected to stymie any financial reforms, that's what the people who paid for it want. The rest is just the means to get the general public to elect their candidates: lies, hyperbole, distortions, scare tactics, gerrymandering and strong arming.

Paid advocates can work for as long as they are getting paid and will say whatever they are told. True believers are limited by their time and adherence to truth.

 

Ok Deiji, please layout the non liberal reasons you support Elizabeth warren.

 

Strange. No one made me lay out my non-libertarian reasons for liking Ron Paul, my non-conservative reasons for liking James Baker, my non-CDU reasons for liking Angela Merkel or Konrad Adenauer, my non-Meretz reasons for liking Naomi Chazan or Nitzan Horowitz, my non-AMC reasons for liking Nelson Mandela, my non-Fabian reasons for liking Clement Atlee or my non-Communist reasons for liking Mikhail Gorbachev.

But I think there are two questions here. The first is why I like Warren, and the second is why I'm not a "liberal." Which would you prefer me to answer?