"Give Me Control 1st, Then I'll Tell You What I'll Do,.."

[Newell Steamer]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mcconnell-digs-hole-social-security-falls

McConnell said he’ll only announce Senate Republicans’ agenda after the election.

When McConnell says “I’m not announcing what the agenda would be in advance,” he’s getting democracy backwards. The longtime incumbent is asking voters to give him control of the Senate first, at which point he’ll tell everyone what he intends to do with his power.

This is some quite odd behavior.

Oh,.. and here is the sticking point;

Either McConnell still intends to eliminate Social Security, replacing it with private accounts, or he doesn’t. The senator brought this up as an example of his bipartisan outreach, so it’s not unreasonable to ask whether he still intends to pursue an anti-Social Security agenda if McConnell gets a promotion.

If this was over some pedantic BS, like bus stop sign repair funding, then yes,.. by all means, tell us to STFU. But, this is over something pretty significant.

I understand that conservatives(EDIT) politicians are generally adverse to facts and figures, but this is over something pretty big, relevant to their success in being elected AND what they will actually be doing at the job!

What gives??

EDIT: Shut my mouth,..

Next question?

 

[The Merg]

I'm sorry, but I want to know what you are going to do for me before I vote for you.

- Merg

 

[fskimospy]

This has been the plan for at least a few years now. Romney and Ryan both also were very reluctant to say what they would do once in office.

This is actually a smart move on their part. When you ask people what they philosophically believe in they tend to side with Republicans. When you ask people about what things they would like to see in reality, they tend to side with Democrats. Keeping it vague is to their advantage.

 

[xBiffx]

I understand that conservatives are generally adverse to facts and figures, but this is over something pretty big, relevant to their success in being elected AND what they will actually be doing at the job!

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"

Sure sounds like a conservative problem to me.

At least here, you have a choice in the matter.

 

[waggy]

yeah that's bullshit.

tell us your plans. then i might vote for you. If you don't want to that's fine i won't vote for you.

 

[OutHouse]

and idiots will still vote because he has an R, and to be fair Dems would the exact same thing.

 

[fskimospy]

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"

Sure sounds like a conservative problem to me.

At least here, you have a choice in the matter.

So wait, you're trying to compare the refusal of McConnell to say what he would do when given power with a bill that was the subject of hundreds if not thousands of public meetings where its contents were discussed at length and where the entirety of the bill was available online for the public to peruse at any time.

Those sound totally the same to me.

 

[xBiffx]

So wait, you're trying to compare the refusal of McConnell to say what he would do when given power with a bill that was the subject of hundreds if not thousands of public meetings where its contents were discussed at length and where the entirety of the bill was available online for the public to peruse at any time.

Those sound totally the same to me.

Read the OP again, everything he is complaining about is relevant to both issues except the conservative part.

And again, at least in this case, people have a choice in the matter.

 

[Jaskalas]

Republican leadership needs to go, for they are corrupt stewards and not leaders.

 

[fskimospy]

Read the OP again, everything he is complaining about is relevant to both issues.

And again, at least in this case, people have a choice in the matter.

How is someone not saying what they will do after being elected relevant to a bill for which the particulars were discussed in public to a greater extent than literally any bill in the history of the United States and for which the entirety of which was posted online for interested individuals to look at?

They seem like polar opposites to me.

 

[xBiffx]

How is someone not saying what they will do after being elected relevant to a bill for which the particulars were discussed in public to a greater extent than literally any bill in the history of the United States and for which the entirety of which was posted online for interested individuals to look at?

They seem like polar opposites to me.

They are both a case of "After I get what I want, I'll tell you want you want to know. I'm not telling you first because doing so could hurt my chances at getting what I want."

You are just trying too hard to make this into an argument. Go ahead, I'm not biting any longer.

 

[fskimospy]

They are both a case of "After I get what I want, I'll tell you want you want to know. I'm not telling you first because doing so could hurt my chances at getting what I want."

You are just trying too hard to make this into an argument. Go ahead, I'm not biting any longer.

Except that in one case (the ACA) the people explicitly made that information available.

In the other case (McConnell) the person is explicitly NOT making that information available.

This is pretty baffling. You're literally trying to say that two polar opposites are the same thing. It's even more baffling that you're then complaining that other people are being argumentative for pointing that out.

 

[cubby1223]

Gee, what a surprise Maddow has a problem with this!

Here in Illinois the gubernatorial race is the big one and neither candidate, Quinn for the D's & Rauner for the R's, has laid out their plan.

For the U.S. Senate, it takes 60 votes to pass most everything. How much exactly will change from today to next year when the new senate is in place? Republicans are not making the 60 senator mark.

 

[cabri]

Better than to do such than tell you that if elected I will do a, b, c

and end up not doing such when the suckers voted for them.

w/ respect to the ACA; there were plenty of TBDs that were included that were left up to the discretion of the new czar to determine/implement.

and as we have already seen, the ACA has been altered multiple times for political benefits by the Democrats.Obama.Congress

 

[Genx87]

Does anybody really believe Republicans are going to tackle SS with a slim majority and Obama?

 

[BoberFett]

Meh. Is it really worse to say "I'm not going to tell you my plans until I'm elected" than to lay out a bunch of bullshit that you have no intention of following up on? Nothing said before the elections matters.

Impotent rage thread.

 

[cubby1223]

Except that in one case (the ACA) the people explicitly made that information available.

In the other case (McConnell) the person is explicitly NOT making that information available.

This is pretty baffling. You're literally trying to say that two polar opposites are the same thing. It's even more baffling that you're then complaining that other people are being argumentative for pointing that out.

First, there were a lot of closed-door meetings before the vote.

Second, it takes corporations teams of paid lawyers to read and understand Obamacare. No individual has any shot at understanding the legislation.

You can argue gritty detail 'till your throat is sore (or fingers in the internet age), but the bottom line is no one was capable of understanding Obamacare while it was being passed. I don't care to go back to the records of how much info of those closed-door meetings was put out there and how much time between them and the vote (I remember it being very short). But the bottom line was, nobody knew the legislation, not even those voting on it knew it in its entirety, before it was passed.

 

[unokitty]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mcconnell-digs-hole-social-security-falls

What gives??

Next question?

 

[cubby1223]

The other way, and I believe is the proper way, to understand McConnell's statement, is that control of the Senate is pretty much assured given the polling. The only people outraged by not laying out a detailed plan are hardcore Democrats who will not vote for the Republican candidate regardless of what is stated ahead of the election. The voting populous is not demanding statements. The partisans are. Partisans can be easily ignored when the voting populous is not with them.

Has Reid come out with his detailed plan for the next two years if Dems hold onto the majority?

 

[Sonikku]

Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.

In a way, it's a step towards more honest politics.

 

[cubby1223]

Also, false thread title. It was never a stated quote, thus should not be written as such.

And to Maddow's point - Obama will never sign legislation that ends social security. If that is your fear, as Maddow is trying to push for her personal ratings, that Republicans winning the Senate you might lose your SS, no, fucking come back to reality. Please. For the sanity of the country. Come back to reality. Not only that, it takes 60 votes to pass such legislation, Democrats have to agree to everything in order to pass the Senate. Ask Reid if he supports ending SS. If he says no, then you have nothing to fear on that point.

 

[werepossum]

Meh. Is it really worse to say "I'm not going to tell you my plans until I'm elected" than to lay out a bunch of bullshit that you have no intention of following up on? Nothing said before the elections matters.

Impotent rage thread.

This, exactly. Politicians' statements are never more than what they have to say to get elected. If you want to see what a politician will do in power, look at what he does when he's not trying to get elected. What he tells he'll do is the absolute worst indicator of what he'll actually do.

 

[senseamp]

Tea party dupes will vote for Republicans and him anyways, why should he say anything?

 

[ivwshane]

So basically you guys don't care what a politician says, so exactly what are you basing your vote on? Popularity? Looks? Party?

I get it, politicians lie, politicians aren't potential dictators so their promises hold little weight but when that politician comes up for re election to what standards are you holding them to? One would think you would look at their previous promises and look at what they accomplished, did they attempt to accomplish their promises?

 

[fskimospy]

Meh. Is it really worse to say "I'm not going to tell you my plans until I'm elected" than to lay out a bunch of bullshit that you have no intention of following up on? Nothing said before the elections matters.

Impotent rage thread.

I broadly agree with you, but less so for those who are occupying leadership positions. McConnell would have the ability to set the Senate agenda and would actually have quite a bit of power to put his preferred bills to a vote. Most Congressmen are insulated from this due to their relative lack of power to set the agenda.