Shut the “F” Up, Hillary

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Markk:

Did you read the piece I posted

Lolol.

- Doc

[_Some Schmo]

Markk, your brain has been fully washed and left out to dry.

Giuliani was in Ukraine the first time trying to make a bogus case about the origins of the Mueller investigation. He wan't there at the time for Biden. You have been damned conned... again.

And this idea that the impeachment is a farce because Democrats wanted to do it all along... it's just damned dumb on several levels.

If your dog gets into my yard and starts digging up the sod, I'll likely tell you to control your damned dog. If he then bites children, I'm probably going to want to put him down, and I'll say so.

It would be a stupid damned argument to then say, you just want to put him down because you never liked him in the first place. Whether I liked him or not is irrelevant to the crimes he's committed. Is this really a difficult concept to grasp?

It's arguments like the ones you've made in this thread that cause people to question a right winger's basic common sense.

[_honorentheos]

I don't think it was a good question. Had Markk been reading my posts he would have picked up on the belief I hold that the Democratic party is at historic levels of diversity ...

An oldie but goodie:

Touche

[_huckelberry]

I don't think it was a good question. Had Markk been reading my posts he would have picked up on the belief I hold that the Democratic party is at historic levels of diversity as moderates and progressives argue for the heart of the party. There isn't a goal. Nor does the GOP have "a" goal.

It was on par with Ben Stiller asking, "But why male models?" after David Duchovney just explained the villianous plot in Zoolander while answering the exact same question.

Politics doesn't distill into such convenient dichotomies so it calls into question what level of discussion is taking place? And is my time really of such little value...

Honorentheos, if by chance you meant this as reply to me, sorry I should have been clearer I was making a response to marks question. I agree with your observation about diversity of plans among democrats but am unfamiliar with your movie reference.

[_canpakes]

Honorentheos, if by chance you meant this as reply to me, sorry I should have been clearer I was making a response to marks question. I agree with your observation about diversity of plans among democrats but am unfamiliar with your movie reference.

Here you go:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WHrn_pHW2so

[_honorentheos]

I don't think it was a good question. Had Markk been reading my posts he would have picked up on the belief I hold that the Democratic party is at historic levels of diversity as moderates and progressives argue for the heart of the party. There isn't a goal. Nor does the GOP have "a" goal.

It was on par with Ben Stiller asking, "But why male models?" after David Duchovney just explained the villianous plot in Zoolander while answering the exact same question.

Politics doesn't distill into such convenient dichotomies so it calls into question what level of discussion is taking place? And is my time really of such little value...

Honorentheos, if by chance you meant this as reply to me, sorry I should have been clearer I was making a response to marks question. I agree with your observation about diversity of plans among democrats but am unfamiliar with your movie reference.

It was intended as a reply to your comment. I don't think US political parties have reducible goals above getting elected.

I'll use an example from a politician Markk may have liked, or who at least was on the right team so to speak. Four years ago if you had asked me what central goal was at the center of House Speaker Paul Ryan's leadership in office, it would have been reducing government spending. Turned out, he was willing to sell out on that in order to get a few tax code changes and bail on his political career because Trump. It's difficult to articulate how central it seemed budget balancing and government spending reductions appeared to be to his entire political identity and yet when push came to shove, with a Republican President and Senate to back an agenda, he capitulated. He didn't even put up a fight.

What motivates Nancy Pelosi? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Bernie Sanders? Is there honestly any overlap beyond holding on to political office that isn't fungible?

The only goal of any political party is to take control of the government. Once they have control, it still is a herd of cats. Obama had to fight to pass the ACA with a Democratic House and Senate. Trump complained of his Republican counterparts in the House and Senate who in turn seemed unable to articulate a conservative agenda beyond packing the benches with conservative judges. Neither party has been able to take advantage of controlling the House, Senate and White House to assert a strong party agenda in the few times it has happened in the last 20 years.

Markk seems to think the Republicans have defined, articulatable goals. They don't other than they oppose Democrats. And Democrats oppose Republicans. We live in a small-idea, power-grabbing world in that sense.

[Alf'Omega]

Republicans don't govern. They don't even pretend. They believe they exist and must assume power to make sure nobody is running the show. They are a placeholder for real leadership.

And of course, they are a bunch of useless, spineless “F” ups. A real leader would convince their party, Hey, maybe we shouldn't put up with a moron for President and not capitulate to the ignorance of their base.

[_Markk]

You should read them; they’re fun articles. But neither one answers the question that I asked regarding your generalized claim of ‘dismantling corporations’ past Bernie’s (neither mentions Warren) consistent chatter about breaking up banks that are “too big to fail”. That’s a pretty specific and small slice of Corporate America. And it’s not like this hasn’t been proposed before by any number of other politicians, with those claimed intentions being subject to the realities that I listed earlier. How are we doing so far with this?

No-one is going to divest their portfolio of financial institutions under that threat. Especially given your own assessment of folks being generally greedy; the appetite for capital will still be there and someone will be around to feed it, whether that’s going to be 6 or so larger banks or three dozen smaller banks that were the children of bank breakups. The fund managers and big money investors just see that scenario as opportunity.

How is putting all those restrictions, jailing folks, giving 48% of all major corporations to the workers, not dismantling the status quo of corporations or even large privately owned companies? These is so out there that it is one reason even the Democrat's go after him.

Go through and count the restrictions and forced goverment policies he would "make" them do.

Google the same for Warren...what is funny or ironic...is do you even know what these people are running on? I'll go back to my original question on what are their end goals? have you read here ACA bill she introduced?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth- ... 1570643931

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -companies

If you want these folks in office...great, but at least understand what they want to do to Wall Sreet, by taking apart and changing the status quo.


Both Sanders and Warren want to give employees a voting share in how the company is ran...and if that is not dismantling the company, I am not sure what you would define the word to imply in this context.

in my opinion if either one of these folks got into power, it would scare the heck out of investors and the corporations, if I am wrong...o'well I am wrong...but if correct...it will be bad.

I believe Investors would invest in other things, and corporations would not invest in their own companies. Why would a major corporation buy back their own stock, or expand, when the goverment is going to take their profits away from them...?

Again, the more I talk with some of you, the more I wonder if you actually know what the Democrat's are offering.

Bottom line. it appears you have no idea about what your party is offering in the way of two of the leading candidates.

[_MissTish]

Markk-

The WSJ stories are paywalled, and the incognito browser trick doesn't work on WSJ.

If you'd like us to read them you'll have to do us the courtesy of pasting the text here.

[_Markk]

Markk seems to think the Republicans have defined, articulatable goals. They don't other than they oppose Democrats. And Democrats oppose Republicans. We live in a small-idea, power-grabbing world in that sense.

No, they were in a mess last cycle, just as the Democrats are now...remember the what, 13 or so in the large debates...cruz, carson, bush, graham, huck, and others.

Are you saying that Trump does not have goals...LOL...I see freaked out Democrats doing nothing but fight, swear, laugh at, cry over, run from, conflate, and even accept his election promises and goals. You can even argue there is a dwindling goal on the red side to sink Trump also.

Trump is a builder, and he has a set of plans, and a schedule to meet, and he knows how to cut through that crap to get the building done. I really see that as a builder also. He has goals, no doubt, and he is achieving a lot of them, right or wrong, or whether we agree with them or not.

The status quo for much of our political lives...has been the clinton
/bush "doctrine"...with a taste of Obama...which started as a pure center moderate left wing view and ended up moving more left socially.

Trump has destroyed that...he has "drained the swamp" so to speak...and we are in a whole new season moving forward. He has the political world in full "what the hell is going on and what do we do mode." Those like Graham, and Cruz, Rubio...who opposed him big time in the beginning are supporting him...minorities are jumping on the Trump bus...and whether you like it or not it is undeniable.

Which leads me to my question that no one will try to tackle..."what is the goal of the blue party." Are they diverse. certainly, but that is a straw-man general argument if left at that...mine is more of how are they diverse, and what is the parties end game? What is their plan?

Right now there only focus or goal is stopping Trump...beyond that I am not sure what their agenda is as a party.

I have to say this, I did not want Trump as a choice...I really didn't. I can't defend his style or his tweets..etc but he is just like many folks here, and that just maybe the thing that was/is needed to take down the Clinton/Bush doctrines and the stale status quo (Washington) politics.

What cracks me up if you watch his rallies, he cracks himself up...he is actually having fun doing what he is doing. I bet he has a few friends that he can be real with, and trust, and when he he is alone with them just laughs his rear off. Maybe this is not good, I am not sure, but to Dylan's point, 'The Times They Are A-Changin'...