Policy or Party?

[MixtyMotions 102]

Are your politics governed by policy or party?

I know many active Republicans.  I suspect all would rather have a Dem President with GOP policies than the opposite.

 

How would you feel if the President were Hillary and she had the following policies:

- Had Trump's track record of nominating and confirming conservative federal judges promoted by the Federalist Society.  Same people including, obviously Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

- Reversed the same Obama executive orders as Trump has, including of course those in the EPA.

- Selected a Cabinet with strong conservative credentials.

- Attacked the racist discriminatory policies of the Justice Department put forth by the Obama Administration, and advocated racially blind policies

- Passed a bill drastically reducing corporate tax rates

- Pushed aggressively to get rid of ridiculous Obama Era immigration policies like "catch and release" and "chain migration"

- And, hell, we can even add joking about grabbing people in the crotch and paying off porn stars to keep quiet about sex.

- Gave rallies promoting Fox pundits and right wing talk show hosts and trashed Lefty media sources.

 

Would you like that Hillary hate her?  Are you Dem or Republican?  I think this horeshit that people develop their positions by party is mostly crap.  The people I know would almost all view the hypothetical President through the lens of her actions, not her party.

[David Dennison 18487]

Fuck off, troll.

Edited December 23, 2018 by David Dennison

[Brian Fantana 6652]

Fuck yourself Tahoe

Edited December 23, 2018 by Brian Fantana

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

just asking questions

[Bozo_Casanova 26180]

23 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

Are your politics governed by policy or party? 1

I know many active Republicans.  I suspect all would rather have a Dem President with GOP policies than the opposite.2

 

How would you feel if the President were Hillary and she had the following policies:

- Had Trump's track record of nominating and confirming conservative federal judges promoted by the Federalist Society.  Same people including, obviously Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.3

- Reversed the same Obama executive orders as Trump has, including of course those in the EPA.4

- Selected a Cabinet with strong conservative credentials.5

- Attacked the racist discriminatory policies of the Justice Department put forth by the Obama Administration, and advocated racially blind policies 6

- Passed a bill drastically reducing corporate tax rates 7

- Pushed aggressively to get rid of ridiculous Obama Era immigration policies like "catch and release" and "chain migration" 8

- And, hell, we can even add joking about grabbing people in the crotch and paying off porn stars to keep quiet about sex. 9

- Gave rallies promoting Fox pundits and right wing talk show hosts and trashed Lefty media sources. 10

 

Would you like that Hillary hate her?  Are you Dem or Republican?  I think this horeshit that people develop their positions by party is mostly crap.  The people I know would almost all view the hypothetical President through the lens of her actions, not her party.11

1) Entirely by policy

2) I don't believe that for a moment.

3) Judges are a sucker bet on a partisan basis. I seriously don't care beyond the judges being extravagantly qualified and have spotless reputations. Gorsuch fits the bill. Kavanaugh is a partisan hack. Stacking the bench a partisan Republican fixation. 

4) Executive orders are a Republican fixation. The president should implement and enforce the law, not make it. If Republican elected hadn't spent the Bush and Trump presidencies surrendering the prerogative of the article one branch you would probably agree. 

5) Those words "strong conservative credentials" don't mean anything at all. 

6) Remember in 2008 when you became briefly convinced that Obama was a secret black nationist? This absurd strawman is probably a sort of rear guard action to protect yourself from the shame of being fooled by a con. 

7) Obama and congressional Democrats actually pushed for a drastic reduction in corporate tax rates during his second term. Your party refused to put it on the floor.  Tell me more about how much your kind of Republican cares about policy. 

8 ) "Catch and Release" dates to the Bush administration, and Chain Migration goes back to the 1920's. I'll spare you the embarrassment of links and let you Google it. 

9) That's the least of his problems. 

10) That's beneath the office of the president, but it's what you get when you elect a clown

11) I already disliked Clinton pretty insensely, but your party has come around on Trump. And the country will pay a terrible price for your meanness and gullability. 

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Degenerate Gardner 4075]

Go to hell Tahoe.

[MixtyMotions 102]

bozo,

I'm unclear whether you would want that hypothetical Hillary or not.

[ADHD 28]

I'll take real Hillary and a time machine.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

36 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

Are your politics governed by policy or party?

I know many active Republicans.  I suspect all would rather have a Dem President with GOP policies than the opposite.

 

How would you feel if the President were Hillary and she had the following policies:

- Had Trump's track record of nominating and confirming conservative federal judges promoted by the Federalist Society.  Same people including, obviously Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

- Reversed the same Obama executive orders as Trump has, including of course those in the EPA.

- Selected a Cabinet with strong conservative credentials.

- Attacked the racist discriminatory policies of the Justice Department put forth by the Obama Administration, and advocated racially blind policies

- Passed a bill drastically reducing corporate tax rates

- Pushed aggressively to get rid of ridiculous Obama Era immigration policies like "catch and release" and "chain migration"

- And, hell, we can even add joking about grabbing people in the crotch and paying off porn stars to keep quiet about sex.

- Gave rallies promoting Fox pundits and right wing talk show hosts and trashed Lefty media sources.

 

Would you like that Hillary hate her?  Are you Dem or Republican?  I think this horeshit that people develop their positions by party is mostly crap.  The people I know would almost all view the hypothetical President through the lens of her actions, not her party.

I like that you use specifics when you want to and vague when you are embarrassed. 

 

You like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, so you call them out by name.  You know you can't say DeVos, Pruitt, Zienke, Carson, Whitaker, Sessions, Ross, Tillerson, Pompeo, Kelly, for various reasons (criminally inept, fired, party hack, hated since inception, put in the role because of the word 'urban', what have you) so you just say "uh . . . strong conservative credentials".

 

And of course people develop their positions by party.  Particularly, the R party.  Do you like tariffs?  Do you think you should be close to Russia?  Do you hate NATO?  The EU?  Do you think we can regulate imports from Canada based on national security reasons?  Do you think morality from the leader is important?  Do you think the FBI, CIA, NSA are in league against the country?  I guarantee that regardless of what you thought 2 years ago, you are in agreement with the party now.   

[Bozo_Casanova 26180]

bozo, I'm unclear whether you would want that hypothetical Hillary or not.

 

I don’t want any Hillary, but she’s 100X better on both policy and statecraft than your party’s leader. So it follows, then, that if you gave her the grab bag of partisan neuroses which you style as Trump’s “policies” she would still be preferable because of his manifest unsuitability for his position as head of state.

 

Where did you stand on corporate tax rates in 2013 and why didn’t your party support that policy?

 

Oh, and why do you personally consistently support tax policies that expand the debt and create unsustainable asset bubbles even though you claim to support fiscal restraint? It that party or policy? Or gullibility?

 

[MixtyMotions 102]

I'll try again.  The hypothetical President is Hillary, she's Dem,  but she supports all GOP issues and nominees and opposes all Dem issues.  I'll define the GOP legislative position as the way GOP Senators would vote if the Prez were in the GOP.  I'll define GOP judicial positions as the way the majority of the five "conservative" Justices would vote.  I'll define GOP nominees as the ones which would receive overwhelming support from the GOP Senate if nominated by a GOP Prez.  I'll define executive positions as the positions backed by the GOP platform.  That's the way the hypothetical Hillary  governs.  Now, you get to decide whether you want her for another term in 2020.  I'm not saying she's a clone of Trump; I'm saying she governs from the GOP playbook.  Maybe she gets all her positions from a private vote of GOP Senators.  She governs as a parliamentary figurehead.

I know my position on every issue.  I don't get it from Fox.  I don't get it from Trump.  But most of the time I'll guess that the majority of the GOP Senators have the same view as I do.  I'll guess that the National Review types share my view.

To be clear, I'd vote for this Hillary.  My problems with Trump are when he does things which are NOT from the GOP playbook.

Edited December 23, 2018 by MixtyMotions

[Hank Kingsley 20594]

Bullshit. More disingenuous bullshit.

[bolverk 29261]

8 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Bullshit. More disingenuous bullshit.

It really is remarkable but it appears to be the only viable tactic to counter criticism of their dear party leader. Well, either that or just outright lying, which their kind also frequently do around here.

[horn4life 3749]

Policy is based on Principles. Currently the Republican party has no Principles, so how can they have actual policy?

[Dahobbs 17407]

That sounds like a terrible president and one that wouldn't represent supposed conservative values pre Trump. Of course, you dont know that, because you are 100% policy is whatever the party says. No principles need apply. 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Dahobbs

[ndawg 1242]

This is a really terrible thread.

[Anastasis 23329]

[cactusflinthead 27588]

Go eat another donut. You traitorous lying sack of shit 

[gmr548 16427]

The holidays are not a time to be divided. They are the time to love one another, enjoy cherished time with family and friends, and to be grateful for what we have.

Tough year? Don't know what to be grateful for? Try this - imagine being as stupid as OP. It's hard, isn't it? Damn near impossible. Be grateful you aren't this dumb and on the internet flaunting it to boot. Merry Christmas!

Edited December 24, 2018 by gmr548

[Blotto 23366]

Alzheimers is a bitch, huh.

[Nivek 16771]

This thread is my fault. Since I stated in another thread they would vote for Hillary’s policies if they were put forth by anyone else with a R next to their name. So the OP wants to spin it to pretend that the GOP has an ideology and that it’s really everyone else that is at fault. We all know they would aggy QB this guy.

[hpslugga 4026]

4 hours ago, horn4life said:

Policy is based on Principles. Currently the Republican party has no Principles, so how can they have actual policy?

Their entire platform is "do what a dick would do, and always oppose Democrats."

[Bullneck 18959]

This is what I think of when I see your posts: 

[Fozzz 152]

Bull Connor did nothing wrong - Tahoe. 

[MixtyMotions 102]

4 hours ago, ndawg said:

This is a really terrible thread.

I agree.  I can't believe how many morons can't understand the question.  You get a choice of a Dem Prez who acts totally like a GOP Prez, or a GOP Prez who acts totally like a DEm Prez.  Which do you want?  It isn't a tough concept.  You don't need to talk about how a Dem Prez acts or how a GOP Prez acts.  You just need to say whether you pick the one with the label you like or the one with the policies you like.  We all know which side you like.  So when you say which you'd choose it is clear whether you like the label or the policies.

 

Anybody I know will pick the policies.  But I don't know people like some of the morons on this thread so I want to hear how they thing.  It would be interesting to know.  But like you observed, it's a terrible thread.  They don't even understand the fucking question.

[SubliminalHorn 6622]

Great Mixty is back with his fucking idiotic threads 

[Continental Op 3934]

If there was a candidate who preferred a policy of not trying to make 15 year old girls blow him behind a restaurant trash dumpster would you vote for him over a candidate who tried to make 15 year old girls blow him behind a restaurant trash dumpster regardless of their party affiliation?  This is of course totally hypothetical. 

[The People’s Elbow 707]

25 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

I agree.  I can't believe how many morons can't understand the question... 

They don't even understand the fucking question.

Understanding the question and thinking you’re a disingenuous prick aren’t mutually exclusive. 

[gmr548 16427]

28 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

I agree.  I can't believe how many morons can't understand the question.  You get a choice of a Dem Prez who acts totally like a GOP Prez, or a GOP Prez who acts totally like a DEm Prez.  Which do you want?  It isn't a tough concept.  You don't need to talk about how a Dem Prez acts or how a GOP Prez acts.  You just need to say whether you pick the one with the label you like or the one with the policies you like.  We all know which side you like.  So when you say which you'd choose it is clear whether you like the label or the policies.

 

Anybody I know will pick the policies.  But I don't know people like some of the morons on this thread so I want to hear how they thing.  It would be interesting to know.  But like you observed, it's a terrible thread.  They don't even understand the fucking question.

The question is simple to understand, it is just fucking dumb. And you know it. Or maybe you don't. I'm not sure which would be worse.

[MixtyMotions 102]

8 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

....

 

Where did you stand on corporate tax rates in 2013 and why didn’t your party support that policy?

 

Oh, and why do you personally consistently support tax policies that expand the debt and create unsustainable asset bubbles even though you claim to support fiscal restraint? It that party or policy? Or gullibility?

 

With a few nuanced exceptions I've had the same politics for fifty years.  I'll guess the GOP is with me about 80% and the Dems 20%.  But just because politicians have a position doesn't mean that legislation can be adopted or policy implemented.  Gridlock and minority party power are realities.

 

On fiscal policy I'd like to see spending long-term at about 21% of GDP, and revenue at about 18% of GDP.  I'd like to see both structured to have more growth.  That means more of the spending should be on infrastructure and the like and less on transfer payments.  It means more of the taxes should be on spending and less on income.  I think we should have debt at about 60% of GDP.  I have clear ideas about too much and too little of all of this stuff.  The GOP is much, much closer to this vision than the Dems.  But my vision is my vision.  I will support a plan where I get some of what I want but not all.  Such is life.  If I support such a plan it does not mean it is my vision.  Occasionally somebody or events cause me to change my vision a little.  That NEVER comes from some silver tongue spouting slogans.  It comes when somebody causes me to reanalyze the numbers.

[Fozzz 152]

Tahoe’s vision is separate but equal. 

[Nivek 16771]

With a few nuanced exceptions I've had the same politics for fifty years.  I'll guess the GOP is with me about 80% and the Dems 20%.  But just because politicians have a position doesn't mean that legislation can be adopted or policy implemented.  Gridlock and minority party power are realities.
 
On fiscal policy I'd like to see spending long-term at about 21% of GDP, and revenue at about 18% of GDP.  I'd like to see both structured to have more growth.  That means more of the spending should be on infrastructure and the like and less on transfer payments.  It means more of the taxes should be on spending and less on income.  I think we should have debt at about 60% of GDP.  I have clear ideas about too much and too little of all of this stuff.  The GOP is much, much closer to this vision than the Dems.  But my vision is my vision.  I will support a plan where I get some of what I want but not all.  Such is life.  If I support such a plan it does not mean it is my vision.  Occasionally somebody or events cause me to change my vision a little.  That NEVER comes from some silver tongue spouting slogans.  It comes when somebody causes me to reanalyze the numbers.

You support pedophiles too.

[MixtyMotions 102]

15 minutes ago, Nivek said:

You support pedophiles too.

You lie.  I especially don't support you.

[SubliminalHorn 6622]

6 hours ago, MixtyMotions said:

With a few nuanced exceptions I've had the same politics for fifty years.  I'll guess the GOP is with me about 80% and the Dems 20%.  But just because politicians have a position doesn't mean that legislation can be adopted or policy implemented.  Gridlock and minority party power are realities.

 

On fiscal policy I'd like to see spending long-term at about 21% of GDP, and revenue at about 18% of GDP.  I'd like to see both structured to have more growth.  That means more of the spending should be on infrastructure and the like and less on transfer payments.  It means more of the taxes should be on spending and less on income.  I think we should have debt at about 60% of GDP.  I have clear ideas about too much and too little of all of this stuff.  The GOP is much, much closer to this vision than the Dems.  But my vision is my vision.  I will support a plan where I get some of what I want but not all.  Such is life.  If I support such a plan it does not mean it is my vision.  Occasionally somebody or events cause me to change my vision a little.  That NEVER comes from some silver tongue spouting slogans.  It comes when somebody causes me to reanalyze the numbers.

No one is reading your wall of words. No one cares what you are typing. 

[TexArcher 37414]

17 hours ago, MixtyMotions said:

I know many active Republicans.  I suspect all would rather have a Dem President with GOP policies than the opposite.

That's funny, because they're all pretty happy with a "Republican" president running the biggest deficit in history.  

[Woland 729]

Never mind.

[Thetexashammer 1062]

36 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

That's funny, because they're all pretty happy with a "Republican" president running the biggest deficit in history.  

And you would describe the deficit as a point of emphasis on MSNBC?

There is a decades old bipartisan agreement to send the country to hell. It's not new news.

[Blotto 23366]

Remember when ole Bill Clinton had a balanced budget with surpluses his final 4 years? And remember how all the republicans rejoiced?

Edited December 24, 2018 by Blotto

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

17 hours ago, MixtyMotions said:

Are your politics governed by policy or party?

I know many active Republicans.  I suspect all would rather have a Dem President with GOP policies than the opposite.

Blah, blah, blah.  Snipped.

 

Fuck you.   You voted for this shitstain of an administration, own up to it and quit trying to play revisionist historian here.

You and your type knew EXACTLY what you were getting in bed with.  Enjoy your fucking judges while the rest of the world burns, bitch.

[David Dennison 18487]

Wait. Is Tahoe trying to say there are Republicans out there with progressive policies?

That's funny.

[Captainant 27250]

1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

And you would describe the deficit as a point of emphasis on MSNBC?

There is a decades old bipartisan agreement to send the country to hell. It's not new news.

Ah yes, both sides. How could we forget. Dems definitely have been basing their military deployments based off the whims of Putin and the Turks. And crashing the economy into the shitter a year after blowing all of our stimulus capacity for the next decade.

It'll be a blast when trump is out, the Dems (or really anyone actually capable, really) are in charge and they get blamed for trumps shit smears on the white house

[hpslugga 4026]

58 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Wait. Is Tahoe trying to say there are Republicans out there with progressive policies?

That's funny.

He's a standup philosopher.

[TexArcher 37414]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Wait. Is Tahoe trying to say there are Republicans out there with progressive policies?

That's funny.

A progressive Republican is one who thinks people should be allowed to be gay in private instead of forced into conversion therapy.  That's as tolerant as they get.  

[Nivek 16771]

You lie.  I especially don't support you.

That is your best retort? You fucking fraud. You supported a child predator. You supported Trump. Your bow and apologize bullshit went on for years but you bent over and spread cheeks for every backwater authoritarian fuckhead. Fuck off again. And don’t come back.

[SubliminalHorn 6622]

27 minutes ago, Nivek said:

That is your best retort? You fucking fraud. You supported a child predator. You supported Trump. Your bow and apologize bullshit went on for years but you bent over and spread cheeks for every backwater authoritarian fuckhead. Fuck off again. And don’t come back.

Preach, sister!

[happyfunball 481]

[tantric superman 4667]

Sugar Bowl Republican Party: Bring Beignets

Cotton Bowl Republican Party: Bring Shipley's

 

[SaucyJack 3475]

"Policy.  Where's my doughnut?".

 

[Gatorubet 30023]

Are your politics governed by policy or party?
I know many active Republicans.  I suspect all would rather have a Dem President with GOP policies than the opposite.
 
How would you feel if the President were Hillary and she had the following policies:
- Had Trump's track record of nominating and confirming conservative federal judges promoted by the Federalist Society.  Same people including, obviously Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
- Reversed the same Obama executive orders as Trump has, including of course those in the EPA.
- Selected a Cabinet with strong conservative credentials.
- Attacked the racist discriminatory policies of the Justice Department put forth by the Obama Administration, and advocated racially blind policies
- Passed a bill drastically reducing corporate tax rates
- Pushed aggressively to get rid of ridiculous Obama Era immigration policies like "catch and release" and "chain migration"
- And, hell, we can even add joking about grabbing people in the crotch and paying off porn stars to keep quiet about sex.
- Gave rallies promoting Fox pundits and right wing talk show hosts and trashed Lefty media sources.
 
Would you like that Hillary hate her?  Are you Dem or Republican?  I think this horeshit that people develop their positions by party is mostly crap.  The people I know would almost all view the hypothetical President through the lens of her actions, not her party.

Fuck you Tahoe. Troll scum that u are


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk