GOP in power - Can they govern?

[rjay]

In November of 2014 the GOP won control of the Senate.

This provided the party a great opportunity to show the Country that this is a party ready to govern.
A party ready to govern the whole country.


So far? Governing seems too much of a challenge for them. Why Govern if you can instead try to make the other party loo bad?

Get ready for four more years of a Democratic President.

 

[Thrilla]

In November of 2014 the GOP won control of the Senate.

This provided the party a great opportunity to show the Country that this is a party ready to govern.
A party ready to govern the whole country.


So far? Governing seems too much of a challenge for them. Why Govern if you can instead try to make the other party loo bad?

Get ready for four more years of a Democratic President.

can they?... sure... both dems and reps can govern.
will they?... dunno... time will tell
will Democrats allow them to without obstructing?.... so far, the answer to that is no.

so basically, we're in the same boat as we have been for years... with a minority party obstructing and a majority party whining about it., the only thing that has changed in the party in control.

 

[rjay]

can they?... sure... both dems and reps can govern.
will they?... dunno... time will tell
will Democrats allow them to without obstructing?.... so far, the answer to that is no.

so basically, we're in the same boat as we have been for years... with a minority party obstructing and a majority party whining about it., the only thing that has changed in the party in control.

That is one way of looking at it.

What if the Republicans put forth straight forward legislation that both houses could agree with - that most Americans think is a good idea. Maybe if they tried that, they would win some support among voters.

Instead we get - 'I have an idea that might make the President look bad' lets put a poison pill in the legislation and force him to Veto it ' snicker snicker

Now we have House Republicans and Senate Republicans fighting and making the whole party look like Amateur hour - again.

 

[Thrilla]

That is one way of looking at it.

What if the Republicans put forth straight forward legislation that both houses could agree with - that most Americans think is a good idea. Maybe if they tried that, they would win some support among voters.

Instead we get - 'I have an idea that might make the President look bad' lets put a poison pill in the legislation and force him to Veto it ' snicker snicker

Now we have House Republicans and Senate Republicans fighting and making the whole party look like Amateur hour - again.

spoken like a true Democrat.



.

 

[Mycroft]

In November of 2014 the GOP won control of the Senate.

This provided the party a great opportunity to show the Country that this is a party ready to govern.
A party ready to govern the whole country.


So far? Governing seems too much of a challenge for them. Why Govern if you can instead try to make the other party loo bad?

Get ready for four more years of a Democratic President.

That is one way of looking at it.

What if the Republicans put forth straight forward legislation that both houses could agree with - that most Americans think is a good idea. Maybe if they tried that, they would win some support among voters.

Instead we get - 'I have an idea that might make the President look bad' lets put a poison pill in the legislation and force him to Veto it ' snicker snicker

Now we have House Republicans and Senate Republicans fighting and making the whole party look like Amateur hour - again.

You sound a bit naive.

1. Republicans may hold the majority of both Houses of Congress, but they don't have total control of the government. Therefore, it is ridiculous to complain that they can't "govern". They don't have the power to do the kinds of things the Democrats did back in 2009...and it's a good thing they don't. Look what that got us...Obamacare. Do you want the Republicans to be able to shove stuff down your throat like the Democrats did?

2. You expect Republicans to "put forth straight forward legislation that both houses could agree with". Why should they? Do you think that's how our system of government is designed to work? It's not.

The reality is, one branch of Congress proposes and votes on some particular legislation. It then goes to the other branch to consider and vote on. If they pass it, fine. It goes to the President to be signed or vetoed. If they don't pass it, they create and vote on their own version of the legislation...if they so choose to. Eventually, both branches might come together and work out a compromise that can get passed and they send that to the President. He gets final say.

To think that either Party should only propose and vote on legislation that everyone...including the other Party...will vote for is really kind of an asinine notion. Our government wasn't designed that way and it has never worked that way...no matter which Party held a majority of Congress.

I suspect you have sour grapes since the voters shellacked the Democratic Congressmen for the second time in a row, but don't use that bad taste in your mouth as a reason to make ridiculous demands of the Republicans.

 

[rjay]

spoken like a true Democrat.



.

No, it was spoken like someone who longs for a party to show leadership for the country instead of trying to appease their base. Surely I am not the only one who would like to see this - I don't care which party steps up and acts with foresight for the country.

But it would be nice to see one of them try it.

 

[Fletch]

No, it was spoken like someone who longs for a party to show leadership for the country instead of trying to appease their base. Surely I am not the only one who would like to see this - I don't care which party steps up and acts with foresight for the country.

But it would be nice to see one of them try it.

Appease the base? You mean the American voters who put them in office? Or do you only approve when liberals appeal to their base? You know, the way Obama ignored public opinion, facts and science regarding XL to appease his leftist base.

 

[rjay]

Appease the base? You mean the American voters who put them in office? Or do you only approve when liberals appeal to their base? You know, the way Obama ignored public opinion, facts and science regarding XL to appease his leftist base.

I approve when policies make sense, even if I do not agree with them. Obama's refusal on XL does not make sense. It does not help in any Global warming fight. It forces transportation through rail which I think is potentially the most dangerous way to move these goods to market.

I think 80% of Republicans will always vote Republican, regardless of policies. I think 80% of Democrats will always vote Democrat no matter what the policies are.

It is the rest of the voters, including independents, that make the difference in Presidential elections. The same folks who get fed up with the partisan shenanigans from both tents.

Even if the Republicans issue sane policies that do get vetoed - it will show they are ready to govern and will be a big asset to the republican standard-bearer that emerges from the Primaries.

 

[Thrilla]

No, it was spoken like someone who longs for a party to show leadership for the country instead of trying to appease their base. Surely I am not the only one who would like to see this - I don't care which party steps up and acts with foresight for the country.

But it would be nice to see one of them try it.

stepping up is easy.. easy as hell...it happens quite often, in fact.
....getting by the minority party is tough work... near impossible without procedural trickery.

nothing magical happened with this last election.. neither party has changed it's stripes.
they simply switched sides.. and the rhetoric and bull**** switched with them.

the GOP isn't going to magically fight for Obama's agenda.. and Dems aren't going to magically abandon protecting Obama's agenda....
so, in very real terms, we'll be at an impasse over anything that's more substantive that naming post offices.... again.

for my money, this stuff will continue until we get a President in office that is better suited to the duties...one with a lot less "my way or the highway" to him/her

 

[Navy Pride]

In November of 2014 the GOP won control of the Senate.

This provided the party a great opportunity to show the Country that this is a party ready to govern.
A party ready to govern the whole country.


So far? Governing seems too much of a challenge for them. Why Govern if you can instead try to make the other party loo bad?

Get ready for four more years of a Democratic President.

Actually the GOP is not in power......They don't hold the presidency nor do hey have a filibuster proof majority...I wish it was so for example the pipeline would be going forth with thousands of new jobs.

 

[upsideguy]

In November of 2014 the GOP won control of the Senate.

This provided the party a great opportunity to show the Country that this is a party ready to govern.
A party ready to govern the whole country.


So far? Governing seems too much of a challenge for them. Why Govern if you can instead try to make the other party loo bad?

Get ready for four more years of a Democratic President.

We are going to have 4 more years of a Democratic President simply because the electoral odds are stacked against the Republicans.

 

[Paschendale]

I don't think that the Republicans are at all interested in governing. If you listen to their speeches and what they say to their constituents, they think that government is inherently useless and "the problem". They seem out to prove that government always makes things worse, and now that they have much of the reigns of government, they will continue to attempt to drive it into the ground, and the nation with it.

 

[Thrilla]

I don't think that the Republicans are at all interested in governing. If you listen to their speeches and what they say to their constituents, they think that government is inherently useless and "the problem". They seem out to prove that government always makes things worse, and now that they have much of the reigns of government, they will continue to attempt to drive it into the ground, and the nation with it.

do you ever saying anything that is factual ?... ever?

jesus :roll:

 

[Thrilla]

We are going to have 4 more years of a Democratic President simply because the electoral odds are stacked against the Republicans.

what do you mean by the "electoral odds are stacked against" them?

 

[upsideguy]

what do you mean by the "electoral odds are stacked against" them?

The Dems pretty much have 240-265 electoral votes locked before the election begins..... The Reps have to run the table on all of the other states if they want to win. Its not impossible, but highly, highly unlikely.

The missing story of the 2014 election - GOPlifer
Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
The Democrats have a lock on the White House - MarketWatch

 

[Thrilla]

The Dems pretty much have 240-265 electoral votes locked before the election begins..... The Reps have to run the table on all of the other states if they want to win. Its not impossible, but highly, highly unlikely.

The missing story of the 2014 election - GOPlifer
Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
The Democrats have a lock on the White House - MarketWatch

well, I guess if all that is true, the GOP shouldn't even run a candidate for President anymore... and neither should any other party.

what's the point?

 

[Paschendale]

do you ever saying anything that is factual ?... ever?

jesus :roll:

I just take conservatives at their word.

The Dems pretty much have 240-265 electoral votes locked before the election begins..... The Reps have to run the table on all of the other states if they want to win. Its not impossible, but highly, highly unlikely.

The missing story of the 2014 election - GOPlifer
Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
The Democrats have a lock on the White House - MarketWatch

Not to mention that the spread of seats in the senate up for election in 2016 also heavily favors Democrats. It has all the electoral advantages that Republicans had last year, and won't suffer from such a horrifically low turnout. Unlike last year, next year the American people will actually express their positions and Democrats will likely take back the senate. Now if only we could do something about all the gerrymandering and likely oust Republicans from the house, too.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't think that the Republicans are at all interested in governing. If you listen to their speeches and what they say to their constituents, they think that government is inherently useless and "the problem". They seem out to prove that government always makes things worse, and now that they have much of the reigns of government, they will continue to attempt to drive it into the ground, and the nation with it.

Only a liberal/progressive/Democrat would equate reducing the size, scope and power of government with driving it into the ground. After all, that is directly the opposite of the desires of the left.

Oh...wait...I forgot. You aren't a liberal/progressive/Democrat. You are a Socialist. I should have added you in there. My bad. liberal/progressive/socialist/Democrat. There...I fixed it.

 

[upsideguy]

well, I guess if all that is true, the GOP shouldn't even run a candidate for President anymore... and neither should any other party.

what's the point?

...



...this is why the Republicans are trying to reign in the Imperial Presidency, something they helped to create.

For the Republicans to win the Presidency, they have to change some of their positions to meet the needs of a shifting demographic. They aren't there yet. Perhaps putting up a Conservative and getting slaughtered at the polls will finally get their attention.

 

[Thrilla]

View attachment 67181319

I just take conservatives at their word.



Not to mention that the spread of seats in the senate up for election in 2016 also heavily favors Democrats. It has all the electoral advantages that Republicans had last year, and won't suffer from such a horrifically low turnout. Unlike last year, next year the American people will actually express their positions and Democrats will likely take back the senate. Now if only we could do something about all the gerrymandering and likely oust Republicans from the house, too.

oh yeah baby... single party rule.... that's the stuff of American dreams!

you people scare me to death with your totalitarian bull****.

 

[Thrilla]

...



...this is why the Republicans are trying to reign in the Imperial Presidency, something they helped to create.

For the Republicans to win the Presidency, they have to change some of their positions to meet the needs of a shifting demographic. They aren't there yet. Perhaps putting up a Conservative and getting slaughtered at the polls will finally get their attention.

:lol: the Republicans created the imperial presidency?... hmmph, I didn't know FDR was a Republican.

so what we are really saying is that the GOP has to run a candidate that is no different , ideologically, than a Democrat if they hope to ever win back the White House.


unlike y'all, I honesty don't believe this stuff...I don't subscribe to the notion that every Democratic party candidate is automatically guaranteed a hefty number of electoral votes no matter the particulars of the candidates.
there are certainly sheep who will vote party lines.. .but nowhere near as many as Democrats hope there are ( thank god)

if it get to the point where Democrats have a lasting and sure lock on the white house ( and congress as our socialist friend seems to think is possible).. we're done as a country... we'll have crossed over into very very very dangerous lands.
at that point, just stick a crown on the Presidents head and declare him a King.

 

[Fiddytree]

View attachment 67181319

I just take conservatives at their word.

That's your first and biggest mistake. Assume they are saying one thing and doing somewhat (though not completely) the opposite. That's where you would find the reality of most (if not all) GOP hopefuls. This would explain the above description of Ronald Reagan. The man was not only confronted with governing reality (a Democratically-controlled Congress, complicated international demands), but also his own former Roosevelt-liberal inclinations precluded such anti-government statements being seen as entirely truthful.

If you stuck to this, perhaps you and the equally clueless libertarians and conservatives you are arguing with would learn something valuable.

 

[Thrilla]

That's your first and biggest mistake. Assume they are saying one thing and doing somewhat (though not completely) the opposite. That's where you would find the reality of most (if not all) GOP hopefuls. This would explain the above description of Ronald Reagan. The man was not only confronted with governing reality (a Democratically-controlled Congress, complicated international demands), but also his own former Roosevelt-liberal inclinations precluded such anti-government statements being seen as entirely truthful.

If you stuck to this, perhaps you and the equally clueless libertarians and conservatives you are arguing with would learn something valuable.

well, i think in the end we might agree on the point of not entertaining political rhetoric as gospel/truth.... but meh, I'm just a clueless libertarian, so don't listen to me.

 

[Fiddytree]

well, i think in the end we might agree on the point of not entertaining political rhetoric as gospel/truth.... but meh, I'm just a clueless libertarian, so don't listen to me.

I often don't.

 

[Thrilla]

I often don't.

I wouldn't imagine you could.