Pirro Blasts GOP: 'You're In Power - Do Something' to Pass Trump Agenda

[sneakypete]

They have a majority and the right to overrule any parliamentary hurdles in their way.

No, what's stopping them is that the titular head of the party, President Trump, does not believe, nor has he ever believed, in the conservative agenda, despite lipservice to the contrary.

@jmyrlefuller

Tell us,oh wise one,which candidate would have pleased you.

[sneakypete]

Are you kidding?  Do you really believe that Paul Ryan and Mitch have conservative laws waiting in the wings to pass and only Trump is standing in their way?

@jmyrlefuller   @IsailedawayfromFR

He probably does. Party People believe the damnedest things.

If that is so, why don't they test that hypothesis by passing the legislation and daring Trump to veto it?

[sneakypete]

They can overrule OR obstruct because they are the so called majority.  In reality, many are nothing more than members of the swamp majority fighting to keep their gravy train on the tracks.

@rangerrebew

And there it is.

[Sighlass]

Ok, just where does Trump stand on healthcare? Throwing around junk words like "Mean" and "uncaring" and "not generous"... Just where does Trump stand on healthcare? Compare that to what he campaigned on. Character matters more than just for showing a true pattern for the voting public, but also for giving Congress an obtainable goal to shoot for. If they are just going to bicker every single time the goalposts are moved then STOP MOVING THE GOALPOSTS.

The conservative answer should be "government has no business in the healthcare".

[libertybele]

Both.   Both men should have lost the primaries,  and failing that we should have voted for the Democrat just to send the message that "If  you stab us in the back,   we will end your career in Washington." 


An Enemy Soldier is less of a danger than a traitor. 


No.   I'm saying that the long term value of cutting off their careers was greater than the potential damage which could be caused by Democrat Senators in Conservative states. 


At the time I pointed out that the NRA has effectively used this technique to insure a congress in which neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are willing to oppose them.   





It wasn't the electorate that I thought would be influenced by doing this.   It was the party establishment for whom the message was intended,  and the message would have been this:


"Attack us at your peril. "

Sorry, but casting a vote for someone worse than the person you are seeking to replace, just to send a message, makes absolutely no sense to me.  An enemy is still an enemy.  You may in essence end their career in Washington, but most wind up landing on their feet be it with a job with an investment firm, law firm or some kind of book deal and most are able to draw a pension.  ..."Congressional Research Service show that as of a year ago there were 617 former members of Congress collecting pensions worth an average of $60,250 a year, or about $5,000 a month. The total cost of those pensions comes to $37.2 million a year.

I don't know about you, but I would love to have a $5,000/month pension coming in.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/05/retirement/congressional-pensions/index.html

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Yes they were,  and that was much discussed at the time.   My rebuttal is that Mitch McConnell and Thad Cochran are known backstabbers,   and that letting the offices go to enemy combatants would give us less grief in the coming future than having known backstabbers continuing to exercise power.

I'd rather have someone with me  70% of the time than someone with me 0% of the time. 

If we do not punish backstabbing,   we will get more backstabbing,  not only from these two,  but from other members of the Senate who were encouraged by their political survival.

You're ducking the issue of different electorates.  The people who would have kicked out McConnell and Cochran would have been the voters of Kentucky and Mississippi -- why would that induce someone like Murkowski to change how she votes?

My recollection was that we had a four vote majority,  so we could still weather the loss of those two seats.   I wanted to throw Cornyn in as well,   but that was one Senate seat too far in my opinion.

Okay, that still would have left us with 50 seats right now, which means we've got Justice Garland rather than Justice Gorsuch.   

But still,  one must have some principles and one must also be willing to take some punches to accomplish the larger goal.   Turning out backstabbers is one of those things which I regard as necessary if a conservative agenda is to be advanced at all.

You need more conservative voters if you want a more conservative Congress.  Electing more Democrats is just moving in the wrong direction.

You aren't looking at this thing from a long enough distance.

No -- you're assuming a cause and effect that doesn't exist.  What is the actual evidence that electing a Democrat instead of McConnell will make Murkowski or Portman more conservative?  Heck, it could even have the opposite effect. 

The moderates are the rump end of the electorate.    The tail should not wag the dog. 

How do RINO's keep winning nominations if they're the rump end of the party electorate?  Where RINO's beat conservatives, it is because in those districts, they have more support than the conservatives, and therefore are not the rump.  The conservatives are -- that's why they don't win in the primaries.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry, but casting a vote for someone worse than the person you are seeking to replace, just to send a message, makes absolutely no sense to me.  An enemy is still an enemy.

Let us stop right here and discuss the difference between a traitor within your ranks and an enemy.   


Which is worse,  a traitor or an enemy? 

[EC]

Let us stop right here and discuss the difference between a traitor within your ranks and an enemy.   


Which is worse,  a traitor or an enemy?

Do you know he's a traitor? If so, he becomes an asset worth using.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'd rather have someone with me  70% of the time than someone with me 0% of the time. 

That is oversimplifying the problem.   What good does it do you to get your 70% on relatively trivial issues,  and then get 0% on issues that are actually important?  (Like stopping the spending.) 

You're ducking the issue of different electorates.  The people who would have kicked out McConnell and Cochran would have been the voters of Kentucky and Mississippi -- why would that induce someone like Murkowski to change how she votes?

If I am ducking it it is because I consider your point irrelevant to my larger point.   But to address it head on,  the same tactic would work on Murkowski.   Let it  be known that you will as a group go over to the other side if they piss you off sufficiently,   and they will pay attention to you. 



Let me see if I can make this strategy clearer.     I'm sure you've heard of the "gang of eight."    I think you will acknowledge that this "gang of eight"  has disproportionate power?   


Why do they have disproportionate power?   What is it that they do,  or threaten to do that has people capitulating to their wishes?     



Now do you understand?   

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you know he's a traitor? If so, he becomes an asset worth using.

One of my problems in many of these debates is that I assume other people have the same set of facts to work with as do I. 

[Smokin Joe]

GOP Congress considering cancellation or reducing August recess, to stay in DC instead, and actually enact the legislation and agenda, upon which they have run every election cycle recently.

Tax cuts, repeal/replace Obamacare, regulation cuts, federal budget reductions, etc. Remember guys/gals?

(now return to your regularly scheduled anti-Trump rants)

Sorry, I have been mainly ranting against the Congress. I'll get back to Trump in due course.

[Jazzhead]

The conservative answer should be "government has no business in the healthcare".

If that's the case, then conservatives will simply be excluded from the solution.  Healthcare reform will be hashed out between centrists and liberals.  (It may take a change in administrations for liberals to come to the table,  but that just keeps the ACA in place for a while longer.  At some point, centrists and liberals will address the ACA's deficiencies.)    Meanwhile, there is simply no possible way that a majority of Congress will agree with the, frankly, absurd position that "the government has no business in the healthcare".   

  Taking unrealistic, absolutist positions can be seen in one of two ways -  extremism or irrelevancy.   Either way, conservatives who do so exile themselves from the conversation.   

[roamer_1]

If that's the case, then conservatives will simply be excluded from the solution. 

Then so be it. The initial premise is unconstitutional, and we are a nation of laws.

Healthcare reform will be hashed out between centrists and liberals. 

It is anyway. There is no Conservative solution that involves federal government.
And when it fails, which it will, because socialist ideas always do, the blood will be on their hands.

Meanwhile, there is simply no possible way that a majority of Congress will agree with the, frankly, absurd position that "the government has no business in the healthcare".   

SURE there is, if your hero wasn't a liberal in favor of it.

Taking unrealistic, absolutist positions can be seen in one of two ways -  extremism or irrelevancy.   Either way, conservatives exile themselves from the conversation.

Yours is an unreasonable absolutist position.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That is oversimplifying the problem.   What good does it do you to get your 70% on relatively trivial issues,  and then get 0% on issues that are actually important?  (Like stopping the spending.)

Supreme Court justices are not trivial.  They may have been the single most important reason to vote for Trump.

If I am ducking it it is because I consider your point irrelevant to my larger point.   But to address it head on,  the same tactic would work on Murkowski.   Let it  be known that you will as a group go over to the other side if they piss you off sufficiently,   and they will pay attention to you.

You're ignoring that there are people to their left who are telling them the same thing. 

Let me see if I can make this strategy clearer.     I'm sure you've heard of the "gang of eight."    I think you will acknowledge that this "gang of eight"  has disproportionate power?   Why do they have disproportionate power?   What is it that they do,  or threaten to do that has people capitulating to their wishes?

Okay, this is a great example.  Your argument, as I understand it, is that this is essentially a game of "chicken", and conservatives lose because we habitually are the ones who serve at the last minute, thus ceding to the moderates their positions, while surrendering our own.  You think we should play hardball and force them to agree to our positions. 

I want to be sure I'm not misrepresenting your point before continuing, so is that a fair characterization?       

@DiogenesLamp

[DiogenesLamp]

Supreme Court justices are not trivial.  They may have been the single most important reason to vote for Trump.

Winning a few battles do not matter if you lose the war.   

You're ignoring that there are people to their left who are telling them the same thing. 

The left already does this to the extent that they can manage.  I'm just saying we should start using the same tactic.   

Okay, this is a great example.  Your argument, as I understand it, is that this is essentially a game of "chicken", and conservatives lose because we habitually are the ones who serve at the last minute, thus ceding to the moderates their positions, while surrendering our own.  You think we should play hardball and force them to agree to our positions. 

I want to be sure I'm not misrepresenting your point before continuing, so is that a fair characterization?       

A game of "chicken"  is not really a good analogy.   People like the "Gang of Eight"  simply don't care if they torpedo legislation.   They more or less act like they have nothing to lose.  They basically say "My way or the Highway."    They aren't going to "swerve"  and they make sure everyone knows it.   


They know that votes are usually won on the small margin in the middle  (as are elections)   and so they position themselves to get goodies that they want by using the threat of going over to the other side.   In this way a small minority achieves disproportionate power in a Democratic system,  and  so they often get what they want  because the threat and the actuality of going over to the other side works.   


Now let's be clear,  i'm not talking about legislation here,   i'm talking about elections.   


We should make it clear to people in Establishment Washington that if you deliberately become our enemy,   we will destroy your career.   


Again,  this is what the NRA does.    If a Republican backstabs the NRA,   the NRA throws their entire weight behind electing his opponent.     If a Democrat backstabs the NRA,  the NRA throws their entire weight behind electing his opponent. 


As a result of this methodology,  we now have a congress in which Neither side will support legislation which goes against the NRA positions. 


This methodology will work for any group sufficiently large to throw an election to the other side with their votes.    We are sufficiently large to use this methodology,  what we lack is cohesion and will power. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Winning a few battles do not matter if you lose the war.

I don't think the Supreme Court should be minimized as "a few battles".  Arguably, it's more important than either of the other two branches. 

Now let's be clear,  i'm not talking about legislation here,   i'm talking about elections.

Okay, but you were the guy who brought up the Gang of Eight., and that was a group formed around specific legislation.  And the reason they had leverage was that they were more willing to live with the status quo than were conservatives.   They'll take their ball and go home because they preferred the status quo to what conservatives wanted.  There's really nothing that can be done about that reality - the side most willing to live with the status quo (or even the opposition's position) is always going to have the most leverage.  That's Bargaining 101.

Again,  this is what the NRA does.    If a Republican backstabs the NRA,   the NRA throws their entire weight behind electing his opponent.  In which election did the NRA support a Democrat who was worse on gun rights?     If a Democrat backstabs the NRA,  the NRA throws their entire weight behind electing his opponent.

I'm a Life Member, and unless I've missed something, you're misrepresenting the NRA's position.  The NRA will back a pro-gun primary opponent of a Republican who backstabs the NRA.  I don't recall the NRA ever backing someone who was anti-gun just to get back at a Republican.  They back primary opponents, or, occasionally, a Democrat who is stronger on gun rights.  But they never support anti-gun Democrats, ever.  Not even to "send a message".

And that actually is my entire point. I fully support primary challenges to Republicans not deemed sufficiently conservative.  But that is a far cry from electing Democrats who are even less conservative.  You want more conservative Republicans in Congress?  Then prove that conservatism is the majority within the party and win the primaries.

[Farish]

The demands for party loyalty should not override the duty for loyalty to their constituents.

Nothing irritates me more than seeing a conservative flap their gums about federalism then turn around and try to remove someone else's congressman. It tends to be a massive waste of time, money, and energy that could be better spent on productive things.

[Farish]

That and the fact that very few give a damn what you or I think! They have one interest that transcends all others and that is getting re-elected and the money guys over on K Street are a big part of their getting that done!

Well said!

[Farish]

Not true.  Clinton won the popular vote, so if that is the measure, then it should be Clinton's agenda that gets enacted.

Also, wasn't it Trump who most loudly proclaimed "the election was rigged", i.e. millions of illegal votes costing him the popular vote? 

[Farish]

Ryan believes in it, but he doesn't have the guts to stand up for it. McConnell, I have no idea what he thinks. Congress is being led by a bunch of weaklings. No one there is leading, and Trump, who could use his clout as President to push things forward, doesn't seem to be interested in doing so.

We have a problem of political paralysis caused by a Congress too afraid to get things done and a President who doesn't care.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't think the Supreme Court should be minimized as "a few battles".  Arguably, it's more important than either of the other two branches. 

Only because the other branches shirk their duty to reign in the power of the courts.

Okay, but you were the guy who brought up the Gang of Eight., and that was a group formed around specific legislation. 

As an example of a system where disproportionate power is held by a tiny minority in the middle willing to go to whichever side offers them the best bribes.   This was in the context of ending the careers of backstabbing traitors on our side. 

And the reason they had leverage was that they were more willing to live with the status quo than were conservatives.   They'll take their ball and go home because they preferred the status quo to what conservatives wanted.  There's really nothing that can be done about that reality - the side most willing to live with the status quo (or even the opposition's position) is always going to have the most leverage.  That's Bargaining 101.

There is.   You make them understand that payback is a bitch.   (This is what the Democrats do.)   If you will notice,  you virtually never have traitors breaking from the Democrat ranks.   Whenever someone switches sides to F*** up their own party's agenda,  it is always Republicans. 

I'm a Life Member, and unless I've missed something, you're misrepresenting the NRA's position.  The NRA will back a pro-gun primary opponent of a Republican who backstabs the NRA.  I don't recall the NRA ever backing someone who was anti-gun just to get back at a Republican.  They back primary opponents, or, occasionally, a Democrat who is stronger on gun rights.  But they never support anti-gun Democrats, ever.  Not even to "send a message".

And that actually is my entire point. I fully support primary challenges to Republicans not deemed sufficiently conservative.  But that is a far cry from electing Democrats who are even less conservative.  You want more conservative Republicans in Congress?  Then prove that conservatism is the majority within the party and win the primaries.

My understanding of the NRA position is that they will work to defeat anyone of either party who backstabs them on gun legislation.   In the primary and in the General as well.   That was what we did in 1994,  and if the policy changed,  I wasn't aware of it. 


Or are you not aware that Bill Clinton's "Assault Weapons ban"  is what flipped congress from Democrat to Republican?   


All I know is that we handed most of the supporters of Bill Clinton's "assault weapon's ban" a good helping of defeat,  and ever since then the Democrats have pretty much shut the f*** up about gun control. 

 

[DiogenesLamp]

Also, wasn't it Trump who most loudly proclaimed "the election was rigged", i.e. millions of illegal votes costing him the popular vote? 

New study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes

A research group in New Jersey has taken a fresh look at postelection polling data and concluded that the number of noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections is likely far greater than previous estimates.

As many as 5.7 million noncitizens may have voted in the 2008 election, which put Barack Obama in the White House.

The research organization Just Facts, a widely cited, independent think tank led by self-described conservatives and libertarians, revealed its number-crunching in a report on national immigration.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/

[Farish]

New study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/

From the article: "The ODU professors, who stand by their work in the face of attacks from the left, concluded that in 2008 as few as 38,000 and as many as 2.8 million noncitizens voted.
Mr. Agresti’s analysis of the same polling data settled on much higher numbers. He estimated that as many as 7.9 million noncitizens were illegally registered that year and 594,000 to 5.7 million voted. (emphasis mine)"

The data is 8 years old, and there's quite a difference between the lowest and highest "estimates". Has nothing to do with 2016, as far as I can see.

[DiogenesLamp]

From the article: "The ODU professors, who stand by their work in the face of attacks from the left, concluded that in 2008 as few as 38,000 and as many as 2.8 million noncitizens voted.
Mr. Agresti’s analysis of the same polling data settled on much higher numbers. He estimated that as many as 7.9 million noncitizens were illegally registered that year and 594,000 to 5.7 million voted. (emphasis mine)"

The data is 8 years old, and there's quite a difference between the lowest and highest "estimates". Has nothing to do with 2016, as far as I can see.

You postulate that by 2016 the problem was all cleaned up?   


Not following your thinking here. 

[anubias]

You postulate that by 2016 the problem was all cleaned up?   


Not following your thinking here.

Who could?  That's why they call them progressives.