Boehner to Step Down from Congress

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote] ZEB wrote:

I have been engaged in many conversations wondering why someone would stay home instead of voting for a candidate who comes closest to meeting their needs. You have seen the same talk on this site. Are they stupid, or just not sophisticated enough to realize exactly what they’re doing? I don’t know, but it happens all the time.Ã??Ã? [/quote]

By process of elimination, stupidity. It doesn’t take sophistication - it just takes basic horse sense. If you think someone that vile and destructive is irreversibly damaging America, you go vote to boot him out. Basic common sense. You don’t do it? Stupid. Like galactically stupid.

Again, we aren’t talking about people somewhat unhappy with Obama - we’re talking about folks ready to proverbally storm the Bastille to get rid of him because of the danger he presents.

But they can’t be bothered to vote. They’ll entertain fantasies of taking up (literal) arms against Obama to restore their “liberty!” - but they can’t go vote.

So, yes, stupid.

There is a third option, I suppose - they really don’t hate Obama as much as they let on. But that seems unlikely.

[/quote]

I do not disagree, not voting is stupid. But, that is apparently what happened in 2012, and in several other elections. As I’ve said, you’ve read some of it right here on T Nation. If someone doesn’t get their ideal candidate BANG that’s it they’re staying home. They somehow delude themselves that not taking action will “show them”. Like a spoiled child who sits alone and pouts they do it thinking that they are getting revenge by non-participation. In reality they are only making matters worse by not voting for the candidate who represents at least part of their interests.

Those who dislike Hillary, or the democratic party philosophy in general must know that the DNC wants you to stay home. They know that you’re not going to vote for their candidate. So, if possible they would really appreciate you copping an attitude and staying home on election day. And what is the biggest group that tends to “stay home” when they don’t get their ideal candidate? 20 something’s! (which doesn’t always hurt the republicans thankfully). But TB you must remember the Ron Paul group that was hanging around here a few years back. They were deluded into thinking that he actually had a chance. When he didn’t get the nomination they all stayed home. They have not been around long enough to realize the damage that they are doing and need their asses kicked for a few election cycles before they realize that what they are doing only harms them.

Another group is what I call “purists” such as the Christian right (there are others). I am disgusted with that demographic when it comes to Presidential election cycles. How many left wing Judges do they want the democrats to appoint before they realize that just because someone doesn’t share their religion does not make them a bad choice for President.

Okay…I went on too long but this is a very important topic to me.

42

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Dick Morris puts it this way:

OMG, I know it’s Newsmax that carried this opinion. I’m so sorry.[/quote]

My favorite line from the article:

“He never understood that capitulation was not a strategy.”

Ha boy isn’t that the truth!

45

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Mark Levin to Establishment ?Sycophants? & Media: Boehner Not ‘Courageous’

"‘The Great One’ mocked news articles that described Boehner as ‘courageous’ and had a message for the ‘liberal journalists and RINO (Republican-in-name-only) sycophants.’

‘You want to see courageous? You go to the Arlington National Cemetery. That?s courageous,’ Levin said. ‘You want to see courageous? You go to the [National Law Enforcement Officers] Memorial in Washington D.C. Go to Walter Reed. That?s where courageous is.’

Levin continued by saying, ‘don?t tell me some Speaker of the House who is going to retire on a 25-year pension and then go to K Street and make a million or two bucks is courageous. One thing John Boehner is not is courageous.’"

He was certainly NOT courageous.

One thing that is not mentioned about Boehner is his lack of intelligence. Only a stupid man makes the same mistake repeatedly. I’m not saying this because I disliked the job he did (even though I disliked the job he did). It just seems to me that while he was well intended he was played like a 10 string harp by Obama and cronies. Boehner was in far over his head.

46

Zeb, if a hard right conservative is the nominee would moderate republicans not do the same thing and stay home?

Personally, I consider myself moderate, especially on social issues, and do not think that is a bad term. There is a crowd that is fiscally conservative and not strong socially conservative. I think you have to be able to reach across the isle but modern day politics seem to get more extreme on both sides. Someone who works with the other party is seen as not being true to their values and is demonized. The dems are lurching left and the republicans are going far right. With a moderate candidate, who far right people hate because he is not far right, would he not be able to get some democrats to vote republican?

For example, if there was a moderate democrat (which there currently isn’t) and someone like Cruz/Huckabee/Santorum was the Republican candidate, I would strongly consider voting democrat for the first time in my life.

Why is moderation so bad when the dems are going so far left? I think this election presents an opportunity for republicans to be seen as the reasonable party, but instead both parties are going to the extreme.

47

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
Zeb, if a hard right conservative is the nominee would moderate republicans not do the same thing and stay home?

Personally, I consider myself moderate, especially on social issues, and do not think that is a bad term. There is a crowd that is fiscally conservative and not strong socially conservative. I think you have to be able to reach across the isle but modern day politics seem to get more extreme on both sides. Someone who works with the other party is seen as not being true to their values and is demonized. The dems are lurching left and the republicans are going far right. With a moderate candidate, who far right people hate because he is not far right, would he not be able to get some democrats to vote republican?

For example, if there was a moderate democrat (which there currently isn’t) and someone like Cruz/Huckabee/Santorum was the Republican candidate, I would strongly consider voting democrat for the first time in my life.

Why is moderation so bad when the dems are going so far left? I think this election presents an opportunity for republicans to be seen as the reasonable party, but instead both parties are going to the extreme.[/quote]

Being moderate is bad when the other side is so very far left. In this case it’s a bad thing because those across the isle are NOT moderate. They are left wing ideologues. They are getting the republicans to move left and giving them nothing in return. That’s what has been going on for the past (almost) 7 years. And that’s why we need conservatives to balance the equation.

One more time, if we have two politicians one of them far left and one of them far right and they each reach to the middle then we have something that everyone can live with. But if you have a strong left wing nut on one side and a moderate republican on the other side where do we end up? …with left wing programs!

Now tell me you are not going to vote for one of the three stooges, Bernie, Biden or Clinton…come on say it my friend!

48

By the way Drew when you have one party that is so far left with no balance on the right this is how you get Planned Parenthood killing babies and selling their body parts. This is how you get job losses because they don’t want to build the Canadian pipeline because sniff, sniff they might hurt the earth. This is how we get tax hikes on the job creators, which again harms the economy.

And the amazing part about it all is that the American electorate has always been center right on most issues. Yet, here we sit in the middle of a left wing take over. The media plays a big part in this telling everyone that republicans are right wing kooks. And then you have his highness Lord Obama who sits on this thrown and gives not an inch taking full advantage of all the moderate republicans, knowing that if he waits long enough he will get his way and have his left wing agenda.

Right now we need some good conservatives to balance out this madness!

49

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is how you get job losses because they don’t want to build the Canadian pipeline because sniff, sniff they might hurt the earth.

…here we sit in the middle of a left wing take over.

Right now we need some good conservatives to balance out this madness!

[/quote]

You are misguided if you believe it’s environmental issues holding up Keystone. There are plenty of industrial jobs to be lost if the project goes through.

…much exaggeration! The same ‘siren call’ we heard from the left during GW Bush years. Heads and tails of the same coin.

Yes we need honorable conservatives…and balance is indeed a noble pursuit.

50

[quote]ZEB wrote:
By the way Drew when you have one party that is so far left with no balance on the right this is how you get Planned Parenthood killing babies and selling their body parts. This is how you get job losses because they don’t want to build the Canadian pipeline because sniff, sniff they might hurt the earth. This is how we get tax hikes on the job creators, which again harms the economy.

[/quote]

Planned Parenthood started receiving government funding in the 70’s. I don’t think they are a result of the current present and the recent shift to the left. To get the issues you mention solved in what you view as the correct way, isn’t the best solution to get a republican in the white house? And you belive the best way to get a republican in the white house is to put the most conservative candidate up there and hope the base gets ignited? I think it would be better to have a moderate candidate who would be very realistic compared to Bernie or HRC.

So the only answer to extremism is opposite extremism? I hope that isn’t the only solution. If a person is being extreme, wouldn’t it be more prudent to be the moderate? Why make it a far-left vs. far-right election? How is that better than a far-left vs. middle-right?

I’m probably a bit naive hoping people aren’t always going to be 100% partisan, but I think if you put a reasonable republican up against Bernie or Hillary there is a good chance you could win over some middle-left dems. The most attention always is given to the most extreme on both sides, I think it would be a mistake to ignore the middle, especially in a general election.

51

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Solid strategy. Instead of consolidating, maintaining a united front through an election, and therefore improving their chances of getting a Republican in the White House, and then passing whatever the Hell they want (being able to run the table), the geniuses in the House want to stage a coup ousting someone who lacks ideological purity, make an bloody example out of a Speaker in their own party, all to have public control and to grandstand during a lame duck session where nothing will actually get done because of the veto.

Try to think of a dumber strategy to secure the endgame of controlling both houses and the White House.[/quote]

I’m fine with all this.

I don’t want one party control, and don’t think the Republicans are going to win the WH anyway.

Boehner didn’t really do what a significant portion of the House was elected to do, Tea Party or not, like them or not. People were elected to do X and didn’t do X. Someone’s going to take the fall. And I’d prefer at least ONE of the two majors parties to have the nuts to make changes rather than just “go with the flow” and try and remain in “power” relying on the guaranteed 45% each party gets from letter voters.

52

I prefer 2 parties over 1 also, but the legislative process has been cowed by the last 2 presidents to such an extent, that it seems necessary to have a Super Majority rather than a majority to maintain balance of power.

I agree with Christie that Congress needs to move passed bills that Obama doesn’t like and force him to veto them. Boehner and McConnell can’t seem to pull that trigger.

53

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:

Planned Parenthood started receiving government funding in the 70’s. I don’t think they are a result of the current present and the recent shift to the left.[/quote]

Were they selling baby body parts in the 70’s. No. They’ve moved along in the wrong direction and the DNC thinks that they are wonderful and Obama will veto any bill which attempts to defund them. If you don’t think the democrats have moved far to the left take a look at John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address and some of his other ideas. He would have to be a republican today!

You are misguided. We put up a moderate in John McCain and lost, a moderate in Mitt Romney and lost. GW Bush passed himself off as a conservative (not that he wasn’t with many things) and won twice…and he was more conservative than either of the previous two that I mentioned. Ronald Reagan was a conservative and beat and incumbent President in Jimmy Carter. He then ran for a second term and won the biggest electoral landslide in Presidential history vs. Walter Mondale. No more moderates they will not bring out the base!

[quote]

So the only answer to extremism is opposite extremism? I hope that isn’t the only solution. If a person is being extreme, wouldn’t it be more prudent to be the moderate? Why make it a far-left vs. far-right election? How is that better than a far-left vs. middle-right?[/quote]

Just as I explained in my previous post. One more time, if you have a moderate reaching out he will go further to the left if he is negotiating with someone of the extreme left. We need to bring the country back to the middle, you don’t do it when you have a far left DNC. Just look at what Hillary Clinton has to say in order to get the nomination. Things she was for four years ago she has to be against now steering further to the left to get the nomination.

You are naïve Drew I will agree with you. The current democratic party has turned so far left they are just stopping short of socialism. As a matter of fact, as you know, one of their candidates Bernie Sanders IS a socialist who is gaining momentum. That would have been unheard of even in the early 90’s. Instead the media is fixated on the three “non politicians” that are running in the republican primary. They are not at all surprised or upset that we have a socialist running as a democrat. That should tell you something about the media and which way the country is moving. As I said the democrats have drifted left and if not stopped now we will be headed toward Socialism.

No one is ignoring the middle. Most people are quite conservative when it comes to fiscal responsibility and other issues as well. What Obama has done by driving up our debt to 19 Trillion should be a felony! Especially when he accused GW Bush of not being patriotic because at the time the debt was around 10 trillion.

I like making predictions, so here’s one for you: If we do not defeat the democrats in 2016 you can kiss the country as you now know it goodbye. This is already a different place than it was just before Obama took over. For example do you honestly think unemployment is under 6%? They are playing with numbers Drew. 47 million on food stamps and millions who left the workforce who are no longer counted as “unemployed”. We are living in the last days of the United States of America being an exceptional land unless something happens, something dramatic to change the course we are on. A moderate republican in the White House (even if he/she could win) will not turn us around!

We are losing our country Drew and it’s happening quite fast relatively speaking. Obama promised change and he certainly brought it–all of it BAD!

We have one more chance to get it right. Do you know what happens when our debt gets to be 23 trillion or so?

I am for any of the republicans who want to bring fiscal responsibility back to our nation. That means Cruz, Rubio, yes even Trump. We cannot afford another four years of someone like Hillary Clinton

Let’s get back to common sense governing, something both parties need to grasp. But, something that is surely out of the possibility for the democrats to accomplish.

54

[quote]treco wrote:
I prefer 2 parties over 1 also, but the legislative process has been cowed by the last 2 presidents to such an extent, that it seems necessary to have a Super Majority rather than a majority to maintain balance of power.
[/quote]

If by that you mean gridlock, I’m all for it.

I’d much prefer gridlock over “let’s make a new law”. Because the latter tends to just be emotional bullshit in response to something, and accomplishes little of its intent and much of the unintended.

55

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]treco wrote:
I prefer 2 parties over 1 also, but the legislative process has been cowed by the last 2 presidents to such an extent, that it seems necessary to have a Super Majority rather than a majority to maintain balance of power.
[/quote]

If by that you mean gridlock, I’m all for it.

I’d much prefer gridlock over “let’s make a new law”. Because the latter tends to just be emotional bullshit in response to something, and accomplishes little of its intent and much of the unintended.
[/quote]

Gridlock is not a bad thing.

We needs less legislation, not more. Change should be a slow, deliberate process. Including a shitload of gridlock.

56

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]treco wrote:
I prefer 2 parties over 1 also, but the legislative process has been cowed by the last 2 presidents to such an extent, that it seems necessary to have a Super Majority rather than a majority to maintain balance of power.
[/quote]

If by that you mean gridlock, I’m all for it.

I’d much prefer gridlock over “let’s make a new law”. Because the latter tends to just be emotional bullshit in response to something, and accomplishes little of its intent and much of the unintended.
[/quote]

Gridlock is not a bad thing.

We needs less legislation, not more. Change should be a slow, deliberate process. Including a shitload of gridlock.
[/quote]

My wife was complaining the other day that all Obama seems to do is play golf lately. I asked her why she was complaining. The worst thing that can happen is that he stays in Washington and actually does something…we know that’s never good.

57

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

Gridlock is not a bad thing.

We needs less legislation, not more. Change should be a slow, deliberate process. Including a shitload of gridlock.
[/quote]

Seriously, every time the government “does something” avoiding gridlock, we get things like Obamacare and Patriot act. I’m with you, it should be hard as shit to make law.

A budget would be nice, even better if its balanced, but we are better off with most of the legislation sitting on the table forever and dying in Congress.

The only problem being that Congress has punted most of its law-making authority to executive agencies. Congress doesn’t make law regarding emissions standards, they make law granting the EPA authority to do it for them.

58

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]treco wrote:
I prefer 2 parties over 1 also, but the legislative process has been cowed by the last 2 presidents to such an extent, that it seems necessary to have a Super Majority rather than a majority to maintain balance of power.
[/quote]

If by that you mean gridlock, I’m all for it.

I’d much prefer gridlock over “let’s make a new law”. Because the latter tends to just be emotional bullshit in response to something, and accomplishes little of its intent and much of the unintended.
[/quote]

Gridlock is not a bad thing.

We needs less legislation, not more. Change should be a slow, deliberate process. Including a shitload of gridlock.
[/quote]

Considering the current situation I would favor requiring a 3/4 vote to pass legislation.

59

I should expound a touch - since I also think system was set for deliberate gridlock and agree it is best.

However, the Republicans that were voted into office in extremely strong numbers to combat laws and Executive Orders that run counter to the majority of voters, have not been able to do a damn thing as 7 people (Potus, Atty Gen, and 5 members of Supreme Court) create their own laws.
The continued preemptive threats of a guaranteed veto (which seemingly can’t be overridden due to votes falling straight down party lines), DOJ ignoring the Constitution, and a liberal Supreme Court that is not only unaccountable but also in the law making business rather than interpretation.

I am not looking for more laws, but taking some of the idiotic crap off the table is why Rs were sent to Washington. Otherwise we seem to be copying Rome’s moving from republic to empire.

60

Even with one party rule, the people can stand up and “enough.” 3 Climate Change laws failed to pass, even with a simple majority vote, because the voters here called our Liberals some crazy ass mother fuckers.