Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pres Trump warns House Conservatives join the team or he comes after them in 2018

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
    /facepalm

    Lack of government interference with day-to-day lives =/= anarchy...
    Of course not. It's just the next step - well, next step for believers in personal responsibility and minimal government. Unfortunately, the nation is dominated by fans and dependents of the nanny state who can't tolerate small government. The last election demonstrated that perfectly. People can't let go of their baby blanket, the state.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Agreed. And the next step after that is anarchy when we realize government is the unnecessary problem we inflict upon ourselves due to cowardice and incompetence.
    /facepalm

    Lack of government interference with day-to-day lives =/= anarchy...

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
    Wait...and you do?



    I agree. Federal government works best here when all parts are in contention with each other and deadlocked...therefore, they can't interfere in our lives because they're too busy fighting each other.
    Agreed. And the next step after that is anarchy when we realize government is the unnecessary problem we inflict upon ourselves due to cowardice and incompetence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    NO .

    The Freedom Caucus is some 10 % of the GOP in the House (there is no Freedom Caucus in the Senate ) . Thus it should be very modest in its demands and not want to have what it can't have .

    The good strategy in politics is to try to obtain what you can have .

    A bad strategy is to try to obtain the best . If you want the best, you will have the worst .

    There are 3 cases :

    A : what the FC want : abolish Obamacare and nothing in the place .

    B : Trumpcare,also called Obamacare lite

    C : Obamacare

    A was out of the question,not only in the House : if it was possible , it would have been voted 2 years ago when there were more GOPs in the House . It was not voted when there were 247 Republicans in the House, why should it be possible with 241 Republicans ?

    Thus the choice was between Obamacare and Trumpcare : the FC rejected Trumpcare, they got Obamacare which for them was worse .

    Was Trumpcare possible ? Very dubious : there was no Trumpcare passing when there were 247 Republicans in the House, why should it be possible with 241 ?

    Obamacare was voted when there was a Democratic majority in the House and remained when there was a GOP majority in the House : the reason being that the House is swarming with Rinos .

    Even if Trumpcare passed the House, it had still to pass the Senate and this was out of the question : at least 5 Rinos had said openly to vote against Trumpcare : Landrieu, Mirkowski, Collins, Isaackson, ..

    I forgot the last .

    And NO Democrat would vote for Trumpcare .

    2 years ago there were 54 GOP senators and Obamacare was not even challenged,thus why should it be possible to repeal it with 52 republicans ?

    Trump was saddled up with a Mission Impossible and proposed a Obamacare Lite . Even this the Rinos would reject . But they were spared this task because the Freedom Caucus,knowing that what it wanted was impossible, still wanted it .

    And now the FC has Obamacare, which for them is the worst situation .

    Not wise from the Freedom Caucus .
    And yet Trump was still a driving force behind this, believing somehow that he could pull it off. The GOP was rife with hubris, thinking it could "repeal" (cough) Obamacare on its anniversary. They failed - and miserably.

    It helped illustrate not only the fractured nature of the GOP, but one of the most delicious ironies: the GOP can't operate without the so-called RINOs. It needs them, and every conservative who complains about them is doing just what the Democrats did months ago: entirely forget that American politics are about hundreds of individual elections, not just one big one.

    Throw into that Trump's switching to blaming the FC, and you've got a great example of an administration looking for a scapegoat without really considering how that plays out when that group is thrown under the bus.

    The Dems are praying the GOP will continue to try and ostracize their RINOs, because those "RINOs" are stuck in purple districts and understand that they can't be seen as Trump's lapdog if they wanna win reelection. The GOP can't afford to fight the ideological fight. It has to be practical... and I don't think they can really pull that off, if the last few months are what we should use to judge them.

    Though watching conservatives suck up to "traitors" is it's own reward. Almost - almost! - as fun as watching a liberal accept that their secular religion has flaws.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    The House bill he supported, Trumpcare, did not in any way support the promises he made on healthcare. Simple fact. If he'd pushed the House leadership to write such a bill they'd have had no problem with 'Rhino' support, they'd even have picked up enough Dems to make the HFC immaterial.

    The problem he let the House Leadership right a GOP bill that no one wanted and did nothing to keep his promises made during the campaign.
    NO .

    The Freedom Caucus is some 10 % of the GOP in the House (there is no Freedom Caucus in the Senate ) . Thus it should be very modest in its demands and not want to have what it can't have .

    The good strategy in politics is to try to obtain what you can have .

    A bad strategy is to try to obtain the best . If you want the best, you will have the worst .

    There are 3 cases :

    A : what the FC want : abolish Obamacare and nothing in the place .

    B : Trumpcare,also called Obamacare lite

    C : Obamacare

    A was out of the question,not only in the House : if it was possible , it would have been voted 2 years ago when there were more GOPs in the House . It was not voted when there were 247 Republicans in the House, why should it be possible with 241 Republicans ?

    Thus the choice was between Obamacare and Trumpcare : the FC rejected Trumpcare, they got Obamacare which for them was worse .

    Was Trumpcare possible ? Very dubious : there was no Trumpcare passing when there were 247 Republicans in the House, why should it be possible with 241 ?

    Obamacare was voted when there was a Democratic majority in the House and remained when there was a GOP majority in the House : the reason being that the House is swarming with Rinos .

    Even if Trumpcare passed the House, it had still to pass the Senate and this was out of the question : at least 5 Rinos had said openly to vote against Trumpcare : Landrieu, Mirkowski, Collins, Isaackson, ..

    I forgot the last .

    And NO Democrat would vote for Trumpcare .

    2 years ago there were 54 GOP senators and Obamacare was not even challenged,thus why should it be possible to repeal it with 52 republicans ?

    Trump was saddled up with a Mission Impossible and proposed a Obamacare Lite . Even this the Rinos would reject . But they were spared this task because the Freedom Caucus,knowing that what it wanted was impossible, still wanted it .

    And now the FC has Obamacare, which for them is the worst situation .

    Not wise from the Freedom Caucus .

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    The Freedom Caucus was wrong and Trump was right .

    There was no majority in the House to repeal Obamacare ,but a lot of Rinos . I doubt that there was even a majority for a Trumpcare .

    It is even worse in the senate : at least 5 Rinos had said publicly that they would oppose not only the repeal of Obamacare but even Trumpcare .

    Trump knew this and proposed Trumpcare ,knowing that the Rinos in the senate would kill it and so he could blame them . But due to the obstination of the Freedom Caucus, Trump has to blame the conservatives .

    What the Freedom Caucus has realized is that Obamacare will remain and that there is war between them and the White House .
    The House bill he supported, Trumpcare, did not in any way support the promises he made on healthcare. Simple fact. If he'd pushed the House leadership to write such a bill they'd have had no problem with 'Rhino' support, they'd even have picked up enough Dems to make the HFC immaterial.

    The problem he let the House Leadership right a GOP bill that no one wanted and did nothing to keep his promises made during the campaign.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    The Freedom Caucus was wrong and Trump was right .

    There was no majority in the House to repeal Obamacare ,but a lot of Rinos . I doubt that there was even a majority for a Trumpcare .

    It is even worse in the senate : at least 5 Rinos had said publicly that they would oppose not only the repeal of Obamacare but even Trumpcare .

    Trump knew this and proposed Trumpcare ,knowing that the Rinos in the senate would kill it and so he could blame them . But due to the obstination of the Freedom Caucus, Trump has to blame the conservatives .

    What the Freedom Caucus has realized is that Obamacare will remain and that there is war between them and the White House .

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
    I believe Trump is confused and seems to not understand how his own country works.
    Wait...and you do?

    I agree. Federal government works best here when all parts are in contention with each other and deadlocked...therefore, they can't interfere in our lives because they're too busy fighting each other.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Freedom Caucus members fire back, and they have the better point.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...our-promise-on

    [email protected] We are where we've always been: committed to keeping our promise,” the House Freedom Caucus responded in a series of tweets from its account Friday morning.

    “Repeal includes eliminating the costly Obamacare regs that are driving up Americans' premiums. We can do better than a plan that only 17% of Americans support. #KeepOurPromise.”
    The bill that President Trump supported in no way kept any of his promises on what the 'replacement' of the ACA.

    Leave a comment:


  • III Corps
    replied
    Originally posted by ThoseDeafMutes View Post
    ...I believe Trump is confused...
    So are others.

    ...He's supposed to pass legislation that he can come to an agreement with the house on...
    The POTUS cannot pass legislation. Congress does that. Do you possibly mean "propose" legislation? Mr. Trump did not present the bill to Congress.

    ...I can't imagine why he wouldn't have been able to bring them around, or perhaps compromise to get it passed...
    That would have required leadership.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Are not these very Congressmen/woman the ones that well vote on impeachment?

    Leave a comment:


  • ThoseDeafMutes
    replied
    I believe Trump is confused and seems to not understand how his own country works. He's supposed to pass legislation that he can come to an agreement with the house on. Not try to pass whatever legislation he wants, then get mad when they don't rubber stamp it and throw a twitter temper tantrum. Since he's such a great negotiator (allegedly) I can't imagine why he wouldn't have been able to bring them around, or perhaps compromise to get it passed. Obama had to compromise on his original vision in order to get Obamacare passed, Trump believed he was above all that I guess. He certainly doesn't understand that he's a public servant, working with other public servant.

    If he wants to declare war on his own party, then all I can say is

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    In this case less than a week, as far as private threats go:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/32...ary-challenger

    Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) claims President Trump threatened to back a primary challenge against him during the contentious negotiations over the Republican ObamaCare repeal and replace bill last week.

    Sanford, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told The Post and Courier on Thursday that the threat was delivered through White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney.

    "'The president asked me to look you square in the eyes and to say that he hoped that you voted ‘no’ on this bill so he could run (a primary challenger) against you in 2018,'" the lawmaker quoted Mulvaney as saying, according to the newspaper.
    At least Trump tried. [Shrugs shoulders]

    Back in the day, when LBJ or FDR or Nixon did that, he was pretty well tied in to the various state and local party machines. With a single phone call those presidents could screw over an uncooperative Congressman. To the best of my knowledge Pres Trump has not cultivated those kinds of contacts. By "going on the record," Rep Sanford is essentially calling Trump's bluff. Bluffing is something a President should never do.

    Or at least never be seen as doing.

    Guess you're right John: Trump's about as subtle as Irish Confetti.

    If you ever get the chance, read Caro's Powerbroker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. Towards the end Master-builder Moses is hassled by a good-looking new reform mayor, John Lindsay -- think Barack Obama with a clipped Ivy League accent. The old lion Moses drew the young cub Lindsay into an old fashioned Albany ambush. Schooled his arrogant ass big time, only Lindsay was too stupid to know it: Lindsay's mayoralty was effectively ended after that -- at least the part that counted. After that Lindsay couldn't get anyone to give him the time of day. I've got a feeling that we're going to see Trump get the same treatment.
    Last edited by slick_miester; 30 Mar 17, 15:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
    In private, yeah -- but I've never heard of a sitting president in public threatening to support opponents to members of his own party in upcoming elections if they don't toe the line. Not even FDR did that, and he treated the Congressional Democrats like a doormat.



    Things like that leak out eventually. It seems they always do. LBJ was the master of that: twisting arms and charming the pants off of various Congressmen, as well as outright buying their votes. But since we've heard no leaks of this nature about Trump's dealings with Congress, I'm left to suspect that he hasn't used that tactic.



    In Washington, they don't stay private, at least not for long. I'm just a little surprised that some "Washington Whispers" column hasn't written a bit about "Trump's man tried to strong arm a recalcitrant Congressional Republican . . . . "
    In this case less than a week, as far as private threats go:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/house/32...ary-challenger

    Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) claims President Trump threatened to back a primary challenge against him during the contentious negotiations over the Republican ObamaCare repeal and replace bill last week.

    Sanford, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told The Post and Courier on Thursday that the threat was delivered through White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney.

    "'The president asked me to look you square in the eyes and to say that he hoped that you voted ‘no’ on this bill so he could run (a primary challenger) against you in 2018,'" the lawmaker quoted Mulvaney as saying, according to the newspaper.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    I find it hard to believe that in the history of our nation no president has ever threatened a member of his own party for failing to support his agenda.
    In private, yeah -- but I've never heard of a sitting president in public threatening to support opponents to members of his own party in upcoming elections if they don't toe the line. Not even FDR did that, and he treated the Congressional Democrats like a doormat.

    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    I believe we have heard of some of those incidents.

    For instance:
    It's no secret that members of Congress broker deals on the treadmill or in the weight room of the House and Senate gyms. But former congressman Eric Massa's accusation that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once berated him in the gym's shower over his vote against President Obama's budget left Washington watchers wondering how much business politicians conduct while naked.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030903654.html
    Things like that leak out eventually. It seems they always do. LBJ was the master of that: twisting arms and charming the pants off of various Congressmen, as well as outright buying their votes. But since we've heard no leaks of this nature about Trump's dealings with Congress, I'm left to suspect that he hasn't used that tactic.

    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    To be fair any private conversations would be well, private....
    In Washington, they don't stay private, at least not for long. I'm just a little surprised that some "Washington Whispers" column hasn't written a bit about "Trump's man tried to strong arm a recalcitrant Congressional Republican . . . . "

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X