Trump accepts Dem demands on Harvey/CR/debt ceiling, infuriating GOP leaders

[dank69]

Ryan and McConnell still control Congress. All this will be converted to, "the Dems reneged on our deal" within a week.

Anything that goes wrong from now on will be Democrats' fault. "Look! We gave the Democrats what they wanted and now x happened!"

 

[Thump553]

Chuck Schumer is a buffoon.

Any basis for your opinion or is it just a matter of belief? IMO if one rates Trump as 100 on the buffoon scale and Albert Einstein as a 1, Schumer would come in somewhere in the single digits. He's tough, smart and (extremely rare these days) pragmatic instead of dogmatic.

 

[UNCjigga]

So how are the Trump apologists spinning this?

Breitbart: No mention...
Rush Limbaugh: No mention (lol at "I'm NOT a hurricane denier!")
Hannity Twitter: No mention...

I guess there's no need to mention this story...Dear Leader does no wrong! I'm pretty sure this was part of Bannon's master plan all along... Right?

 

[agent00f]

So this just happened:

Tump gave in to all Schumer/Pelosi demands without firing a shot right in front of the GOP leadership. This means their caucus will have to vote for even more spending bills and another debt raise before the end of the year...which they were very much extremely opposed to doing before the midterms. Just hours ago Ryan called the Dem demands impossible and unreasonable.

Dear leader would almost be as great of a negotiator as some of the democrats here if he wrote a blank check for spending in blue areas with no strings attached.

 

[kirbyrj]

Any basis for your opinion or is it just a matter of belief? IMO if one rates Trump as 100 on the buffoon scale and Albert Einstein as a 1, Schumer would come in somewhere in the single digits. He's tough, smart and (extremely rare these days) pragmatic instead of dogmatic.

Schumer is a professional politician. He has gone his entire adult life doing nothing but being an elected official starting at the age of 23. Who are you fooling about him not being dogmatic? The only thing good I can say about him is he's at least willing to deal compared to Harry Reid. Why is he dealing? So he can keep on being elected...it's the only thing he knows. On your Trump/Einstein scale. Schumer is at least in the 90's. If HRC had been elected, he would have been well over 100.

One of these days, people are going to realize that term limits is the only way to have the people's voice actually heard in the government.

 

[Moonbeam]

Chuck Schumer is a buffoon.

I thought a buffoon was a person who calls people buffoons because he or she has been programmed to vomit such remarks at the sight of a trigger. For this reason I can understand the need to be a buffoon yourself. It shortcuts any need to attempt to defend your claim, which, of course, was preposterous to begin with.

 

[K1052]

One of these days, people are going to realize that term limits is the only way to have the people's voice actually heard in the government.

Don't forget abolishing the electoral college too.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Don't forget abolishing the electoral college too.

And change districting to citizen designed.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Just wait until the Irma funding hits the fan.

 

[fskimospy]

Schumer is a professional politician. He has gone his entire adult life doing nothing but being an elected official starting at the age of 23. Who are you fooling about him not being dogmatic? The only thing good I can say about him is he's at least willing to deal compared to Harry Reid. Why is he dealing? So he can keep on being elected...it's the only thing he knows. On your Trump/Einstein scale. Schumer is at least in the 90's. If HRC had been elected, he would have been well over 100.

What's your basis for this? Your argument basically seems to be that someone is inherently dogmatic and buffoonish for being a politician for a long time, which seems silly.

What specific actions/stances has he taken on major issues that you think reveal him to be dogmatic or a buffoon? What actions would he have taken with Clinton as president that would have rendered him more buffoonish than Trump? Again, be as specific as you can.

One of the greatest ills our society is facing is the false equivalence between the two parties. People think saying 'a pox on both' is signaling that they are impartial and enlightened. In reality it's simply providing aid and comfort by normalizing the ever increasing radicalization of the American right.

One of these days, people are going to realize that term limits is the only way to have the people's voice actually heard in the government.

Considering that newly elected officials tend to have ideologies further away from the median voter than already established ones how do you figure?

Term limits just further erode the power of the legislature.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Just wait until the Irma funding hits the fan.

That will be Ted Cruze's chance to say NO!
In case you don't know Ted, people have said his Dad was involved in the Kennedy assasination.

 

[yllus]

What's your basis for this? Your argument basically seems to be that someone is inherently dogmatic and buffoonish for being a politician for a long time, which seems silly.

It's an odd argument in general. I've been a software developer since the age of 20; with this logic that'd mean I'm surely bad... at software development? You'd think that if Trump had proved anything it's that amateur politicians are a horrible, horrible idea.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's an odd argument in general. I've been a software developer since the age of 20; with this logic that'd mean I'm surely bad... at software development? You'd think that if Trump had proved anything it's that amateur politicians are a horrible, horrible idea.

It's not so odd. There is a general expectation that being a politician is a form of public service, not a career in and of itself. Because once people make a career out of politics, they become part of the machine and create layers of self serving bureaucracy to protect the political class. Career politicians are also more susceptible to the influence and sway of lobbyists. Term limits are a good thing.

 

[woolfe9998]

So how are the Trump apologists spinning this?

Breitbart: No mention...
Rush Limbaugh: No mention (lol at "I'm NOT a hurricane denier!")
Hannity Twitter: No mention...

I guess there's no need to mention this story...Dear Leader does no wrong! I'm pretty sure this was part of Bannon's master plan all along... Right?

I didn't check the others, but breitbart is reporting on it now, in a negative way toward Trump. This decision will cause further conflict not only with McConnell and Ryan, but also with the far right. That isn't a bad thing.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not so odd. There is a general expectation that being a politician is a form of public service, not a career in and of itself. Because once people make a career out of politics, they become part of the machine and create layers of self serving bureaucracy to protect the political class. Career politicians are also more susceptible to the influence and sway of lobbyists. Term limits are a good thing.

I bet you will find that freshmen members of congress are much, much more susceptible to lobbyists than long time legislators. Lobbyists will have influence networks they have built over decades while new guys have nothing. Who is more vulnerable to lobbying, the guy who has no network and needs them to do anything or the guy who has power of his own?

This is what I think people gloss over when it comes to term limits. The presidency comes with a huge support network attached. A new guy doesn't necessarily need longstanding ties. The same isn't true for the legislature. When you add term limits you subtract power.

 

[sactoking]

As someone who's been a state level lobbyist in a state with newly effective term limits I heard all the time that the loss of legislative experience was a huge hit for government efficiency. As experienced legislators termed out and were replaced by freshmen there was a huge loss of institutional knowledge. That void was filled by lobbyists, people without term limits and decades of issue specific experience, giving obviously biased histories to legislators.

So which is it? Are term limits necessary to limit lobbyist influence by curtailing long term relationships or are term limits bad because they increase lobbyist influence by eliminating institutional knowledge? It can't be both and I've heard the argument being made by both sides as their needs dictate.

 

[UglyCasanova]

The whole debt ceiling limit is bullshit when one party controls the processes that create the need to raise it. Don't want to raise the debt ceiling? Don't pass bills that necessitate it.

Agreed. The debt cealing and voting whether or not to pay the bills is bs, if you spent it then pay for it. The real fight should be over spending but neither party wants to do that.

 

[Younigue]

you say "on his way" as if he wasn't a Democrat in the past.

of course Trump will never be a Republican or Democrat, he only cares about what benefits him the most.

And pretend cares (very temporarily) about anyone that strokes his moving target of a delicate/volatile ego the very best at any given moment. What a wounded, over-eager, very dangerous, feral and deranged bottom dweller he is.

 

[IronWing]

Schumer is a professional politician. He has gone his entire adult life doing nothing but being an elected official starting at the age of 23.

So he should get along great with Paul Ryan.

 

[Jhhnn]

Agreed. The debt cealing and voting whether or not to pay the bills is bs, if you spent it then pay for it. The real fight should be over spending but neither party wants to do that.

Only one party puts on pretentions & allows their own radical minority to hold the govt of the people hostage to their whims.

 

[Jhhnn]

I figure McConnell & Ryan are actually breathing sighs of relief. Shutting down the govt to keep the Teatards in line probably isn't their idea of fun. They get to put off internal squabbling with the Teatards for 3 months. They're being flogged for tax cuts by their mega rich donors & they need to find a way to look good doing it. Like Cheney said, deficits don't matter when it comes to that.

 

[Starbuck1975]

As someone who's been a state level lobbyist in a state with newly effective term limits I heard all the time that the loss of legislative experience was a huge hit for government efficiency. As experienced legislators termed out and were replaced by freshmen there was a huge loss of institutional knowledge. That void was filled by lobbyists, people without term limits and decades of issue specific experience, giving obviously biased histories to legislators.

So which is it? Are term limits necessary to limit lobbyist influence by curtailing long term relationships or are term limits bad because they increase lobbyist influence by eliminating institutional knowledge? It can't be both and I've heard the argument being made by both sides as their needs dictate.

That's an interesting perspective but it makes sense. The obvious answer would be to get rid of the lobbyists.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's an interesting perspective but it makes sense. The obvious answer would be to get rid of the lobbyists.

The obvious answer is that everybody gets a unicorn.

 

[sactoking]

Getting rid of lobbyists doesn't accomplish anything. One of the primary purposes of lobbying is to communicate information to legislators about the potential effects of proposed legislation. Get rid of the lobbyists and now bills are passed in a vacuum and you have a plethora of unintended consequences.

 

[K1052]

Watched some CNN and the non Trump republicans are clearly having an out of body experience. This does not portend well for their hopes.