Has Republican Congress finally learned they'll need to constructively work with President Clinton?

[JoLLyRoGer]

The only hope for anything good to come out of congress is a (D) majority in both house and senate.
I'm hoping this GOP 2016 side-show might have actually put the house in play (although the realist in me doubts this).

 

[PokerGuy]

It's really very simple, but some of you have a tough time grasping it. Should that scumbag illary occupy the white house, I want my reps to do any and everything to limit the amount of further damage she can do to the country. Same as with the current idiot. If the reps help her or enable her to do more damage then obviously it's time for them to be removed and replaced with someone who will do better.

 

[fskimospy]

It's really very simple, but some of you have a tough time grasping it. Should that scumbag illary occupy the white house, I want my reps to do any and everything to limit the amount of further damage she can do to the country. Same as with the current idiot. If the reps help her or enable her to do more damage then obviously it's time for them to be removed and replaced with someone who will do better.

Thank you, this is basically the embodiment of what I was saying earlier.

Republicans have no electoral incentive to compromise because their primary goal (as is for all politicians) is to be re-elected, not to run the country. In more normal times these two fates were tied together as a well functioning country benefited their chances of re-election. Now that primaries have become the preferred vehicle for the ultra-right to enforce orthodoxy if they compromise with Clinton/Obama then PokerGuy and others who think like him will have them replaced with someone who will not compromise. The actual outcome of the legislation and performance of government in its duties is secondary at best.

And no, before you ask, the left is not as bad as the right in this respect. Go look at the number of primary challenges for Republicans vs. Democrats.

 

[PokerGuy]

Thank you, this is basically the embodiment of what I was saying earlier.

Republicans have no electoral incentive to compromise because their primary goal (as is for all politicians) is to be re-elected, not to run the country. In more normal times these two fates were tied together as a well functioning country benefited their chances of re-election. Now that primaries have become the preferred vehicle for the ultra-right to enforce orthodoxy if they compromise with Clinton/Obama then PokerGuy and others who think like him will have them replaced with someone who will not compromise. The actual outcome of the legislation and performance of government in its duties is secondary at best.

It's funny because you fail to see that it's a completely rational position. If you start from the position that illary and her ilk will harm the country with their actions, then wanting to make sure my reps do whatever they can to stop them is in the best interest of the country. Stopping her is in everyone's best interest.

Has nothing to do with ultra-right orthodoxy. Working together for the good of the country is a great goal, but it doesn't work when you hold essentially diametrically opposite positions on what is good for the country. If someone seeks to destroy the country, then you either fight them in every way possible or you capitulate. There's no compromise.

 

[theeedude]

Republican party can not be reformed, precisely because of people like above. It can only be contained and eventually snuffed out once demographics and actuarial tables do their work.

 

[fskimospy]

It's funny because you fail to see that it's a completely rational position. If you start from the position that illary and her ilk will harm the country with their actions, then wanting to make sure my reps do whatever they can to stop them is in the best interest of the country. Stopping her is in everyone's best interest.

That's not a rational position at all, actually. The idea that 100% of the policies she will enact will harm the country is pretty silly and I'm sure you know that.

As an example of the costs of reflexive, scorched earth opposition, just look at the Republicans under Obama and the ACA. They were totally unwilling to budge even an inch on the legislation, meaning they forfeited any ability to influence it. It's basically certain that the ACA would have been 'better' from a Republican perspective had they not engaged in scorched earth opposition. Instead, they lost entirely.

Had they been able to act more rationally instead of being held hostage by their base, they would have ended up with legislation more to their liking. Unfortunately, their base has gone insane.

Has nothing to do with ultra-right orthodoxy. Working together for the good of the country is a great goal, but it doesn't work when you hold essentially diametrically opposite positions on what is good for the country. If someone seeks to destroy the country, then you either fight them in every way possible or you capitulate. There's no compromise.

And this is what I'm talking about, thank you again! Neither Clinton nor Obama are attempting to 'destroy the country', they are attempting to enact center-left legislation. If you think center-left legislation is akin to national destruction then you're simply proving my point about this being about ultra-right ideology.

 

[Paratus]

It's really very simple, but some of you have a tough time grasping it. Should that scumbag( )illary occupy the white house, I want my reps to do any and everything to limit the amount of further damage she can do to the country. Same as with the current idiot. If the reps help her or enable her to do more damage then obviously it's time for them to be removed and replaced with someone who will do better.

It's really very simple, but some of you have a tough time grasping it. Should that scumbag ( )illary occupy the white house, I want my reps to do any and everything to limit the amount of further damage she can do to the country. Same as with the current idiot. If the reps help her or enable her to do more damage then obviously it's time for them to be removed and replaced with someone who will do better.

Missing H's?!! You are obviously an alt of Arcadio. Motion for ban.

J/k'ing

 

[openwheel]

I am first and foremost a Christian, a conservative, a Republican, then American. My church and bible teachings come first, then Fox News preaching, then Republican talking points, then the well being of USA.

I vote Republican!!!

 

[hal2kilo]

It's funny because you fail to see that it's a completely rational position. If you start from the position that illary and her ilk will harm the country with their actions, then wanting to make sure my reps do whatever they can to stop them is in the best interest of the country. Stopping her is in everyone's best interest.

Has nothing to do with ultra-right orthodoxy. Working together for the good of the country is a great goal, but it doesn't work when you hold essentially diametrically opposite positions on what is good for the country. If someone seeks to destroy the country, then you either fight them in every way possible or you capitulate. There's no compromise.

Prime example of win at all costs, fuck the country mentality that, not will, is destroying this country. Keep on keeping on keeper of the truth.

Edit: filters? really?

 

[trenchfoot]

Yeh, this thing about give nothing/take everything that the Repub Congress have been hellbent on accomplishing really didn't do them much good. Rather, it looks to me like with so many other scams and ploys they've committed in the name of "starving Obama and the Dems" to make them look feckless and unproductive, that scorched earth game plan of theirs for the most part backfired badly.

In this regard, I can't blame those Repub constituents that, as a plurality, gave Trump the nod as the party's presidential nominee. For with that choice, the Repubs have, whether they meant to or not, made a statement that they would rather have a long shot like Trump lead their way than any of those Repub legislators and state office holders that had anything to do with the miserable performance record they earned in their efforts to take Obama down.

They failed to do that, obviously. However, what they did accomplish was make Obama look even better than if they had actually worked with the guy and gotten some things in return that they could rest their laurels on.

As it is, their attempts at branding Obama as the "do nothing President" actually backfired and made THEM appear what they were accusing Obama of.

 

[jman19]

Prime example of win at all costs, fuck the country mentality that, not will, is destroying this country. Keep on keeping on keeper of the truth.

Edit: filters? really?

You can toggle the filter off in your settings. I can see what you wrote

 

[Jhhnn]

It's funny because you fail to see that it's a completely rational position. If you start from the position that illary and her ilk will harm the country with their actions, then wanting to make sure my reps do whatever they can to stop them is in the best interest of the country. Stopping her is in everyone's best interest.

Has nothing to do with ultra-right orthodoxy. Working together for the good of the country is a great goal, but it doesn't work when you hold essentially diametrically opposite positions on what is good for the country. If someone seeks to destroy the country, then you either fight them in every way possible or you capitulate. There's no compromise.

If you start from a completely irrational position then it all makes sense, huh?

 

[Vic]

The election isn't until November 8th, guys. Let's not jump the gun and pull a Brexit.

 

[bshole]

Anyone who looks at the catastrophe which is Trump, and by extension the Republican Party, has to acknowledge that what's happening in this election year is an inevitable consequence of the right's unprecedented obstructionism under President Obama. Trump wouldn't have received the level of support he has from an enraged, fed up Republican base if not for all of the lies, failed promises, and counter-productive tactics perpetrated by Republicans in Congress. The Republican base had and has genuine grievances and Trump became their false Messiah.

Trump is going to go down in flames, and he may well take down the Republican majorities in the Senate and House with him. My question is, will Republicans learn ANYTHING from the Trump fiasco? There used to be a time when Democrats and Republicans worked together. Neither side got everything they wanted, but most people were somewhat satisfied. Can Republicans get themselves back into actually being a constructive participant in governing America?

Because if they don't, then 2020 may lead to a REAL revolt by voters, who could actually put in power someone as horrible as - or even worse than - Trump. And if you don't understand how terrible that would be for America and for the world, then you're one of the people who scare the shit out of me.

She already has the full support of neo-con Republicans.

Another week, and another set of Republicans have endorsed Hillary Clinton. Is it because of existential threat of Donald Trump, or could it be because many of Clinton’s potential policies conveniently line up with theirs?

Longtime Republican foreign policy stalwart and Iraq warmonger Robert Kagan became the latest neoconservative to endorse Clinton for president last week. He has even offered to host a fundraiser on her behalf, as Foreign Policy Magazine first reported on Thursday. Kagan has followed the likes of former Bush deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage and a slew of lower-profile officials in their endorsement of Clinton over Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lican-endorsements-donald-trump-policy-issues

Clinton has already won outright endorsements from some prominent members of the Republican foreign-policy establishment. Brent Scowcroft, a national security adviser to Ford and George H.W. Bush, and Richard Armitage, a deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush, have publicly declared they plan to support Clinton over Trump. The Clinton campaign recently put out an ad that features conservatives questioning Trump’s ability to serve as commander-in-chief.

The focus on national-security risks alienating progressive voters wary of Clinton’s reputation as a foreign-policy hawk more likely to support military intervention abroad than President Obama and other Democrats. Chants of “No more war!” rung out inside the Wells Fargo Center when former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and retired General John Allen spoke in support of Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.

“Henry Kissinger is an architect of war,” said Winnie Wong, a co-founder of The People for Bernie Sanders. “That Hillary Clinton is purportedly courting an endorsement from him speaks volumes about her future foreign-policy plans for the United States. Progressives want peace. This is not peace.”

Break out the body bags for our young men, we will be filling them in a year or so.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...linton-henry-kissinger-foreign-policy/494945/

This isn't to say Trump is a reasonable alternative. It is just stating that our foreign policy is going to go to shit and we are going to have another GW Bush style debacle in the Middle East.

 

[Vic]

She already has the full support of neo-con Republicans.



Break out the body bags for our young men, we will be filling them in a year or so.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...linton-henry-kissinger-foreign-policy/494945/

And a vote for Trump is somehow a vote for peace?
And let's suppose -- hypothetically -- that the US were on the brink of war. Who would you want in the White House?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

What does "the brink of war" even mean anymore? We haven't fought a legitimate defensive war since WW2.

 

[MongGrel]

What does "the brink of war" even mean anymore? We haven't fought a legitimate defensive war since WW2.

Plunk

http://thebulletin.org/

 

[Jhhnn]

She already has the full support of neo-con Republicans.



https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lican-endorsements-donald-trump-policy-issues



Break out the body bags for our young men, we will be filling them in a year or so.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...linton-henry-kissinger-foreign-policy/494945/

This isn't to say Trump is a reasonable alternative. It is just stating that our foreign policy is going to go to shit and we are going to have another GW Bush style debacle in the Middle East.

Even Neocons recognize that Trump is a dangerous fucking idiot. The slant that Clinton has been reaching out to them is amusing. It's more like them reaching out to her.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans are the ones who need to affirmatively demonstrate that they are not the insane party. Otherwise they are going to keep losing new generations of young people as their aging/unhealthy base is relocating to the graveyard.
Meanwhile Hillary will appoint SCOTUS justices who will gut Citizens United, and stop GOP's voter suppression, and put a lid on racial gerrymanders. So GOP won't have structural advantages to offset their unpopularity. They will actually have to compete.

 

[rudder]

Anyone who looks at the catastrophe which is Trump, and by extension the Republican Party, has to acknowledge that what's happening in this election year is an inevitable consequence of the right's unprecedented obstructionism under President Obama. Trump wouldn't have received the level of support he has from an enraged, fed up Republican base if not for all of the lies, failed promises, and counter-productive tactics perpetrated by Republicans in Congress. The Republican base had and has genuine grievances and Trump became their false Messiah.

Nope. Trump has supporters because of the Republican congress not doing enough. I mean have you not noticed the fucking national debt has doubled under Obama? Practically every time the federal government reaches the spending limit there is a vote to raise it. And no, not raising the spending limit does not mean the U.S. government will spiral into default. It will put a stop to new spending. Tax revenue will not suddenly stop. There will be money to pay the bills.

At some point everyone who advocates tax and spend has to realize that we will reach a point where either taxes will have to be raised significantly or government services will have to be cut. Of course this is political suicide to do either. So the spending continues and the debt grows since some other generation will have it blow up in their face.

Hillary is also pimping for votes with offering free college and other crap. It is only going to get worse.

 

[dank69]

She already has the full support of neo-con Republicans.



https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lican-endorsements-donald-trump-policy-issues



Break out the body bags for our young men, we will be filling them in a year or so.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...linton-henry-kissinger-foreign-policy/494945/

This isn't to say Trump is a reasonable alternative. It is just stating that our foreign policy is going to go to shit and we are going to have another GW Bush style debacle in the Middle East.

This is what is wrong with you. They are clearly endorsing Hillary simply because Trump is toxic to them. You take that to mean she is in league with them. You're just as toxic as any Republican fanatic.

 

[skyking]

I think you all have missed the boat here. My prediction is, Hillary will make many compromises with the conservatives and piss off a whole bunch of dems in the process. I think she will move more paper than the last 2 presidents combined.

 

[dank69]

I think you all have missed the boat here. My prediction is, Hillary will make many compromises with the conservatives and piss off a whole bunch of dems in the process. I think she will move more paper than the last 2 presidents combined.

No way she deviates that far from the DNC platform. No way.

 

[bshole]

This is what is wrong with you. They are clearly endorsing Hillary simply because Trump is toxic to them. You take that to mean she is in league with them. You're just as toxic as any Republican fanatic.

Well obviously Trump is not fit for office. Clinton is fit for office but her foreign policy is 180 degrees from what where I believe it should be. I have some disagreements with Obama's foreign policy but they are minor in the context Clinton's vision. Her vision is the exact mirror of the most conservative neocon Reuplicans. I am predicting a shitstorm of equal size or greater than Iraq if she attempts to take down Assad. I realize that Trump would probably do the same thing but I don't consider him a legit candidate. He will not and should not gain the presidency.

I don't think it is too much to state that you absolutely lose your right to condemn the war in Iraq if you support a new war in Syria.

 

[dank69]

Well obviously Trump is not fit for office. Clinton is fit for office but her foreign policy is 180 degrees from what where I believe it should be. I have some disagreements with Obama's foreign policy but they are minor in the context Clinton's vision. Her vision is the exact mirror of the most conservative neocon Reuplicans. I am predicting a shitstorm of equal size or greater than Iraq if she attempts to take down Assad. I realize that Trump would probably do the same thing but I don't consider him a legit candidate. He will not and should not gain the presidency.

I don't think it is too much to state that you absolutely lose your right to condemn the war in Iraq if you support a new war in Syria.

Does she support a new war in Syria? I seem to remember she said in the last debate that she will not put boots on the ground in Syria.