The Constitutional Crisis Thread

[_Res Ipsa]

You seem convinced unless Democrats adopt a Michael Moore approach to policy and rhetoric they are doomed based almost entirely on your personal political predilections and against an avalanche of evidence about how elections work.

just the opposite. exactly the opposite. how do you come up with this crap?

i think they should learn one thing from michael moore - get on your horse, put down your phone, go talk to real people. end of damned story. moore is right about that.

they are doomed because we have no idea what the hell these democrats are doing, or what they want to do. all we know from democrats is that they ran against Trump, and he won. and they are running against Trump again. banking reform is no longer a concern. student loan crisis is pending, so the hell what. we got nobody on that yet.

the avalanche of evidence is that elections are won by the accumulation of personal choices of real people that vote. when democrats have their own ideas that attract those people, and real leaders to lead those people, they will win. pretty simple.

If you're ignorant of position's democrats took on those and other issues during the election, then that's really on you.

[_Mayan Elephant]

I'm sure it is a coincidence that your strategic prescription appears to be the same as your policy preferences,

that is another thing the democrats might consider in the future. aligning their strategy with their policy. that is brilliant.

as opposed to having a policy on a website somewhere and a strategy that is more related to selling hallmark cards and used vhs tapes. i think alignment is a good idea. yes. you got that right.

boy, this bernie thing is still burning for you, yes? he didn't “F” up the election for hillary. he gave her more energy than she ever got on her own, and she shat it. he was the biggest boost in the dnc, they all shat it. i only mentioned his preferences because they were good ideas and that is the last idea we saw from the dnc. they were good. someone should not have flushed them all.

If you're ignorant of position's democrats took on those and other issues during the election, then that's really on you.

i am quite aware. i am also aware of how they were prioritized in their strategies. that is also on me. i voted accordingly. as did the rest of america.

[_Res Ipsa]

If you're ignorant of position's democrats took on those and other issues during the election, then that's really on you.

i am quite aware. i am also aware of how they were prioritized in their strategies. that is also on me. i voted accordingly. as did the rest of america.

I do agree that the amount of emphasis the Democrats placed on Trump during the campaign was a mistake. They should have spent more time selling their ideas to the American people.

Right now, they are an opposition party. They have no ability to sell an agenda to anyone. So, they oppose. Like the GOP did for eight years until election time.

Come election time, they'll need to offer something better.

[_EAllusion]

that is another thing the democrats might consider in the future. aligning their strategy with their policy. that is brilliant.

You think Democrats adopting and championing the policy positions you personally prefer is the single best strategic path to winning power. I sarcastically jabbed at that coincidental alignment. Surely you recognize that it is possible that the best electoral strategies might not involve advocating for the political outcomes you wish to see, right?

You should be happy. The reality is that you can be a flaming socialist or a dead-center neo-liberal and it barely makes any difference at all for your chances of winning the presidency. This means you get to run flaming socialists with minimal fear of reprisal.

[_Mayan Elephant]

You think Democrats adopting and cha.

EA. Stop crying and stop your attempts at mind-reading.

Stick to what I say. Refute it. Your claims, repeatedly, of knowing what I think are just like your opinions man.

You're wrong. Again. You do not know what I think.

Nope. It's not the single best. Never said that. You lying piece of damnit. I happen to like those topics because I have a child attending Georgia Tech and I spent 14 years on Wall Street and my observations are that it deserves reform, including reinstating Glass-Steigal.

God. You really hate Bernie. Flaming Socialist?

[_EAllusion]

EA. Stop crying and stop your attempts at mind-reading.

Apparently I should also stop post-reading.

I don't "really hate Bernie." I'm not a fan, but he's not exactly a top political threat. Also, Bernie is a hardcore socialist. Policy positioning matters far less than your posts say you think it does.

Sanders probably would've beaten Trump, though it is hard to say for sure given the lack of negative campaign against him. So would have Martin O'Malley. So would have a blue dog Democrat.

[_Gunnar]

Elizabeth Warren did an excellent job of showing why the Muslim ban is illegal, unconstitutional, immoral and mind bendingly stupid. It hurts many of the people we least want to hurt and least want to alienate, including very courageous Muslims and their families who, up to now, have been some of our strongest allies and assets in combating ISIS and Islamic extremism. Trump is out of his mind if he thinks this stupid policy will make us safer or win us allies in the fight against Islamic extremists. There is hardly anything I can imagine that would more effectively play into the goals and recruitment efforts of the very people we are trying to combat. Trump and his puppet master, Bannon, are apparently too blinded by their bigotry and power lust to see the damage they are causing, or too demented to care, as long as they think it will somehow advance their self-serving agenda.

[_subgenius]

Elizabeth Warren did an excellent job of showing why the Muslim ban is illegal, unconstitutional, immoral and mind bendingly stupid. It hurts many of the people we least want to hurt, including very courageous Muslims and their families who, up to now, have been some of our strongest allies and assets in combating ISIS and Islamic extremism. Trump is out of his mind if he thinks this stupid policy will make us safer or win us allies in the fight against Islamic extremists. There is hardly anything I can imagine that would more effectively play into the goals and recruitment efforts of the very people we are trying to combat. Trump and his puppet master, Bannon, are apparently too blinded by their bigotry and power lust to see the damage they are causing, or too demented to care, as long as they think it will somehow advance their self-serving agenda.

Ah, another update from the still-butt-hurting left.
You realize that her simply saying "it is illegal and unconstitutional" is not the same thing as "doing an excellent job of showinng why [it] is illegal and unconstitutional", right? Are you so hysterical that you can't see Warren's pathetic attempt to regain standing in a party where she embarrassed herself by lack of integrity with Sanders and Clinton? The sun has set on her political landscape and she knows it...but the arrogance and power appetite for her is unable to lay at rest. (She is as pathetic of a display as Pelosi and Chuck with their "statue of liberty is crying" rhetoric (a.k.a. tweets) - ugh, the desperate smoke of a Democratic party in flames)

Also, please prove how these "courageous families" have been our strongest allies combating ISIS as they flee their country where ISIS is located.
(eg should the military now consider a soldier that flees the battle "one of our strongest allies"?)

Interesting to note that Obama recently overhauled the immigration policy for Cuba, effectively ending the "wet feet dry land" policy of decades prior. Obama did this in a relatively quiet manner, quiet enough that 91 refugees that were on the water did not know of the new policy. Obama refused to let them into America and shifted them to Mexico where they were "stranded"...these courageous Cuban families....so, how do you and Elizabeth manage to put food into your mind-bendingly stupid mouths?

[_Mayan Elephant]

Sanders probably would've beaten Trump, though it is hard to say for sure given the lack of negative campaign against him. So would have Martin O'Malley. So would have a blue dog Democrat.

I agree. I think anyone coming out of a normal nomination process from the DNC would have beat Trump.

[_Res Ipsa]

Another data point on what "vetting" looks like in the Trump White House: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/st ... president/