• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Im all good for voicing opinions and all, but let's leave personal attacks out of it. Don't make me regret creating this thread.
 
The Raven said:
He's had a chance. All he's shown is a complete ineptitude to manage a legislative push and manage his staff. AHCA rollout has been a joke, and the turmoil in the WH just proves what an ineffective manager Trump really is.

I've never been one to believe that the "outsider coming in" would actually make the system work, because frankly, the system wasn't broken. It was designed to work slowly. That's what the founders had in mind. It works slowly for good reason: 1. it takes a while to build consensus support for policy change and 2. it takes a while to actually craft quality legislation. The only part of the system that doesn't work is the players, but I'd argue the only way to improve that is to get more experienced politicians in Congress instead of electing a bunch of inexperienced rabblerousers and bomb throwers.

Contrary to popular belief, the longer someone holds office the less beholden they are to lobbyists, the more able they are to stand on their own feet, and the more skilled they become as legislators. There's a reason Mike and Mike always get unanimously reelected -- with Republican votes -- to Senate President and House Speaker in the Maryland State House. They know how to make the system work. Even the Republican leadership voted for them.

We seriously need to focus on getting qualified, skilled lawmakers in office and keeping them there. In Congress and the White House. I mean, Republicans passed up the immensely qualified John Kasich for a bomb throwing rabble rouser with no experience in government? (Can someone explain that, by the way?) Why are we not rewarding quality candidates by electing them, and instead letting inexperienced malcontents hold office, holding the nation hostage as they tread water figuring out how to do the job? We need more John Kasichs and fewer Donald Trumps.
Click to expand...

He's had "a chance"? lol.......I think 4 months is a ridiculously short time period to judge, especially in a new presidential administration. Think I'll wait at least 2 or 3 years to judge his effectiveness.
 
Tank said:
He's had "a chance"? lol.......I think 4 months is a ridiculously short time period to judge, especially in a new presidential administration. Think I'll wait at least 2 or 3 years to judge his effectiveness.
Click to expand...
Obama got a stimulus plan done in 30 days. Trump can't even get an infrastructure bill done in over 100. Hell, he can't even get healthcare reform through when his party has a choke hold on Congress. Sure, there was more urgency for the stimulus, but there's something to be said for electing people that know what they're doing so they don't have to play catch up. Trump's presidency is the equivalent of a 7th grader reading notes from the first quarter five minutes before the final starts.
 
The Raven said:
Obama got a stimulus plan done in 30 days. Trump can't even get an infrastructure bill done in over 100. Hell, he can't even get healthcare reform through when his party has a choke hold on Congress. Sure, there was more urgency for the stimulus, but there's something to be said for electing people that know what they're doing so they don't have to play catch up. Trump's presidency is the equivalent of a 7th grader reading notes from the first quarter five minutes before the final starts.
Click to expand...

This is why I hesitated to post in this thread........ unreal.
 
The Raven said:
He's had a chance. All he's shown is a complete ineptitude to manage a legislative push and manage his staff. AHCA rollout has been a joke, and the turmoil in the WH just proves what an ineffective manager Trump really is.

I've never been one to believe that the "outsider coming in" would actually make the system work, because frankly, the system wasn't broken. It was designed to work slowly. That's what the founders had in mind. It works slowly for good reason: 1. it takes a while to build consensus support for policy change and 2. it takes a while to actually craft quality legislation. The only part of the system that doesn't work is the players, but I'd argue the only way to improve that is to get more experienced politicians in Congress instead of electing a bunch of inexperienced rabblerousers and bomb throwers.

Contrary to popular belief, the longer someone holds office the less beholden they are to lobbyists, the more able they are to stand on their own feet, and the more skilled they become as legislators. There's a reason Mike and Mike always get unanimously reelected -- with Republican votes -- to Senate President and House Speaker in the Maryland State House. They know how to make the system work. Even the Republican leadership voted for them.

We seriously need to focus on getting qualified, skilled lawmakers in office and keeping them there. In Congress and the White House. I mean, Republicans passed up the immensely qualified John Kasich for a bomb throwing rabble rouser with no experience in government? (Can someone explain that, by the way?) Why are we not rewarding quality candidates by electing them, and instead letting inexperienced malcontents hold office, holding the nation hostage as they tread water figuring out how to do the job? We need more John Kasichs and fewer Donald Trumps.
Click to expand...

That would be common sense approach to politics / democracy but it can never work in the age of radicalised political parties, largely populist electorate, ambivalence of those supposed to push for a real change, awfully dumbed-down media, etc.
 
The Raven said:
Yeah, after an effing horrible first quarter. The Tribune said "Job growth has slowed in recent months," and that is 100 percent true. It's been a bad couple of months.
Click to expand...

Read the graph on my article which is peacock channel business and come back again. The article in the Tribune clearly states job growth averaged 121 thou March thru May when the actual avg is well over 200 thou. The Tribune article is dated June 3rd. Fake news.
 
Willbacker said:
Read the graph on my article which is peacock channel business and come back again. The article in the Tribune clearly states job growth averaged 121 thou March thru May when the actual avg is well over 200 thou. The Tribune article is dated June 3rd. Fake news.
Click to expand...
Your conservative Wall Street Journal is also reporting the 121K jobs: https://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2017/06/02/may-jobs-report-the-numbers-2/

From WSJ: "The economy added a net 138,000 jobs in May, down from recent trends but steady enough to chip away at unemployment. Meanwhile, job growth was far weaker in March and April than previously thought. The economy has created an average of 121,000 jobs over the past three months, roughly two-thirds of last year’s average monthly job growth."

I'm not an economist but the difference may be the word "net." Hypothetically, the U.S. may have grown 240K jobs one month, but it may have lost 110K, resulting in a net gain of 130K. Through some quick googling I've found that there's a difference between gross job growth (your 220K figure) and your net job growth (your 121K figure).
 
Last edited:
The Raven said:
Thanks for the enlightening discourse. Any real response to anything?
Click to expand...

Haha.....nope, sorry. Not into the "us and them" spiel. I'm of the opinion that it is that type of partisanship that has put us on the treadmill of mediocrity and have no interest in debating that type of politics. As soon as I read "Obama did so and so in 40 days" I knew it was time to check out.

What I do have to say is that I fully supported President Obama even though I disagreed with much of his agenda. At the beginning I thought as the first black president he could help to unite our nation. Sadly, I think he wasted a great opportunity as he just sat in the boat, floating along.
 
Tank said:
Haha.....nope, sorry. Not into the "us and them" spiel. I'm of the opinion that it is that type of partisanship that has put us on the treadmill of mediocrity and have no interest in debating that type of politics. As soon as I read "Obama did so and so in 40 days" I knew it was time to check out.

What I do have to say is that I fully supported President Obama even though I disagreed with much of his agenda. At the beginning I thought as the first black president he could help to unite our nation. Sadly, I think he wasted a great opportunity as he just sat in the boat, floating along.
Click to expand...
I'm not making it about "us and them." I'm simply putting up a comparison for Trump. If we're not allowed to compare Trump to past presidents, how can we measure his efficacy? Or are we not interested in measuring his efficacy? Is his rhetoric enough? Because he hasn't come close to fulfilling any of his campaign promises -- the lobbyist ban, the infrastructure deal, tax reform etc -- and Democrats are willing to work with him on those issues. I don't even understand how you thought I was making it a partisan thing when I was clearly talking about ability.

It's not "us about them." It's about grading the guy that half the country wanted. Are we getting return on investment?

By the way, can anyone here explain to me why Trump got the nomination over Kasich or even Cruz? I probably would've voted for Kasich over Clinton in the general due to his credentials, but Republicans didn't give me that chance. Why vote for the rookie when you can have the All Pro? This has irked me since the start of the primary. Never understood why Republicans wanted a neanderthal over a highly qualified pool of candidates.
 
The Raven said:
I'm not making it about "us and them." I'm simply putting up a comparison for Trump. If we're not allowed to compare Trump to past presidents, how can we measure his efficacy? Or are we not interested in measuring his efficacy? Is his rhetoric enough? Because he hasn't come close to fulfilling any of his campaign promises -- the lobbyist ban, the infrastructure deal, tax reform etc -- and Democrats are willing to work with him on those issues. I don't even understand how you thought I was making it a partisan thing when I was clearly talking about ability.

It's not "us about them." It's about grading the guy that half the country wanted. Are we getting return on investment?

By the way, can anyone here explain to me why Trump got the nomination over Kasich or even Cruz? I probably would've voted for Kasich over Clinton in the general due to his credentials, but Republicans didn't give me that chance. Why vote for the rookie when you can have the All Pro? This has irked me since the start of the primary. Never understood why Republicans wanted a neanderthal over a highly qualified pool of candidates.
Click to expand...

To state the obvious again, it's too early to compare, judge effectiveness, or anything else. Doing so suggests partisanship, especially when you consider the major changes that aspects of the present platform proposes. One thing's for sure, at least there are attempts being made to change things. Wait a couple, three years and then "measure his efficacy". The over arching point here is that the man was elected president and you should hope that he is able to make improvements whether you support his politics or not.

Can you explain why Clinton won the nomination over Bernie? Thinking I may have voted for him over Trump.
It was the "outsider" aspect of Trump that not only got him nominated, but also won the election. To be frank, it's a sad commentary on the political pool that there wasn't anyone more qualified than him or Clinton. Seems to me that it was just the much more appealing pile of pooh that became president. But the fact is, he is the President and I hope that he succeeds.
 
The Raven said:
I'm not making it about "us and them." I'm simply putting up a comparison for Trump. If we're not allowed to compare Trump to past presidents, how can we measure his efficacy? Or are we not interested in measuring his efficacy? Is his rhetoric enough? Because he hasn't come close to fulfilling any of his campaign promises -- the lobbyist ban, the infrastructure deal, tax reform etc -- and Democrats are willing to work with him on those issues. I don't even understand how you thought I was making it a partisan thing when I was clearly talking about ability.

It's not "us about them." It's about grading the guy that half the country wanted. Are we getting return on investment?

By the way, can anyone here explain to me why Trump got the nomination over Kasich or even Cruz? I probably would've voted for Kasich over Clinton in the general due to his credentials, but Republicans didn't give me that chance. Why vote for the rookie when you can have the All Pro? This has irked me since the start of the primary. Never understood why Republicans wanted a neanderthal over a highly qualified pool of candidates.
Click to expand...

In my opinion it is simple why Trump got the nomination and was elected as President, he is not a politician. All three branches of the federal government have failed the American people. Voters wanted a change hoping that our government could do more to serve the needs of the people.
 
Tank said:
Can you explain why Clinton won the nomination over Bernie? Thinking I may have voted for him over Trump.
It was the "outsider" aspect of Trump that not only got him nominated, but also won the election. To be frank, it's a sad commentary on the political pool that there wasn't anyone more qualified than him or Clinton. Seems to me that it was just the much more appealing pile of pooh that became president. But the fact is, he is the President and I hope that he succeeds.
Click to expand...
The DNC rigged the primaries.
 
Tank said:
To state the obvious again, it's too early to compare, judge effectiveness, or anything else. Doing so suggests partisanship, especially when you consider the major changes that aspects of the present platform proposes. One thing's for sure, at least there are attempts being made to change things. Wait a couple, three years and then "measure his efficacy". The over arching point here is that the man was elected president and you should hope that he is able to make improvements whether you support his politics or not.

Can you explain why Clinton won the nomination over Bernie? Thinking I may have voted for him over Trump.
It was the "outsider" aspect of Trump that not only got him nominated, but also won the election. To be frank, it's a sad commentary on the political pool that there wasn't anyone more qualified than him or Clinton. Seems to me that it was just the much more appealing pile of pooh that became president. But the fact is, he is the President and I hope that he succeeds.
Click to expand...

The notion that Clinton isn't qualified is dubious. Political scientists, reporters, pundits, and politicians alike all considered her one of the most qualified candidates in a long time. Definitely more qualified than Obama. She served as Secretary of State, and emails aside, she had a good run there. (If you blame her for Benghazi you should read about how Congress slashed her budget for embassy security). The president's most important job is foreign policy and defense -- it's the only role the states can't fill. She had that experience in her role as SoS.

Clinton won the nomination over Bernie because 1. The country isn't ready for a far left, democratic socialist, even though the bedrock of our country was created by democratic socialists called FDR and LBJ. and 2. Because Bernie is probably the least effective senator. He has accomplished next to nothing in his 20 whatever years there.

I do hope he does good work but I haven't seen anything that even gives me hope.

Somerset Ravens said:
In my opinion it is simple why Trump got the nomination and was elected as President, he is not a politician. All three branches of the federal government have failed the American people. Voters wanted a change hoping that our government could do more to serve the needs of the people.
Click to expand...

I totally get that, but that mindset is like taking Peyton Manning and asking him to pitch for a baseball team. You shouldn't take a football player to play baseball, and you shouldn't elect a non-politician to do a politician's job. Politics are a different animal from business. He's learning on the job, and this country doesn't have time for that.
 
Ludy51 said:
The DNC rigged the primaries.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. Hillary smoked Bernie in the popular vote. She didn't just win the superdelegates. She crushed Bernie in the popular vote and with superdelegates. The fact is that most Democrats didn't like Bernie enough. No matter how much the DNC rigs the superdelegates, they can't rig the popular vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top