The Greatest Orator

H_Arendt · 2019-01-01T17:01:50.788Z

Carpe Diem:

You describe the frightening prospect of an uncompromising Democratic Party imposing its will on a less imperious Republican Party.

I wonder if you could provide some examples of this? When I look a recent history, I keep coming up with examples of the opposite.

When President Obama sought a stimulus package to counter the 2008/Bush market crash, he accepted Republican proposals and switched one third of the stimulus from expenditures to tax cuts. (The Republicans voted against the stimulus anyway, but that an example of Mitch McConnell’s “Let’s make Obama a one term President strategy.)

During the House debate on the Affordable Care Act, again in the Obama years, over 100 Republican amendments to the act were put to a vote and more than 80 (I think it was 82) were adopted. In contrast, when the Republican House worked on its bill to repeal the ACA, no Democratic amendments were allowed to come to a vote.

Since Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert’s term, the Republicans have followed the “Hastert Rule” when they had a House majority. The Hastert Rule states that no bill may be brought to a vote in the House unless it has the support of a majority of Republicans. Subsequent Repbulican speakers have refused to allow a vote on numerous bills that would have passed in a bi-partisan fashion because of the Hastert Rule. – especially in the area of immigration When Nancy Pelosi was Speaker (the one Democratic Speaker since Hastert, she applied no such rule.

By long standing tradition, subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee have always required signoff from the Committee’s Chair and Minority Leader. Under Republican Chairman Dennis Issa, the committee rules were changed so that subpoenas only require the approval of the Chairman, thus making the subpoena power one party rather than bi-partisan.

After recent gubernatorial wins by Democrats in North Carolina, Wisconsin and Michigan, the Republican majorities in the state legistlatures have moved to substantially reduce the power of the governor, powers that did not seem to worry them when Republicans held the governorship. In contrast, when the Democratic majority in the New Jersey legislature, reacting the actions taken after Scott Walker’s defeat in Wisconsin, began to draft a bill to substantially disadvantage the state Republican Party, there was a national outcry among Democrats that this is not how Democrats do things and the bill was dropped. I cannot recall a single Republican speaking out against the Wisconsin legislature – a legislature that is so gerrymandered that in the 2018 election, when 1.3 million votes were cast for Democrats and 1.1. million cast for Republicans, the Republicans claimed 63 seats while the Democrats got 36.

So respectfully, I suggest that while you fear anti-Democratic actions by the Democratic Party you have it backwards, and it is the Republicans who have been inflexible.

Please provide your counter examples.

Demon · 2019-01-01T17:06:34.531Z

Or a long way to say some of his supporters will lap up his ■■■■■■■■ like it’s ice cream and they say please sir can I have some more?

Blackwolf · 2019-01-01T17:11:33.379Z

“Please can I have two scoops, Daddy Donald?”

Demon · 2019-01-01T17:14:16.828Z

And he wouldn’t even give them two scoops. That’s just for him.

Blackwolf · 2019-01-01T17:15:46.133Z

His brilliant and articulate tweets are sweet enough for his highly respected and esteemed devotees.

Demon · 2019-01-01T17:17:05.796Z

Like the nectar of the gods.

Plasmaball · 2019-01-01T17:22:33.405Z

Yay! Make believe time

Phaedrus · 2019-01-01T20:23:28.856Z

carpe_diem:

Even though I do believe that we differ politically, I applaud you for being
able to take a step back and be objective within politics.

Your string of words were put together quite nicely.
To many people on both sides of the spectrum can’t seem to be
objective now adays. It’s sad, because if both sides were more objective then
more things would get done amongst politicians in general now adays.

Just in my opinion, the Republicans seem to budge more, and give up more.
Where as the Democrats basically say it’s their way or no way at all, and
don’t seem to want to actually work together with the Republicans to come to
an agreement at all. That’s not how politics are suppose to work in America.
I think that the Democrats simply want a dictatorship with Socialism and a one
party system. Theirs.

You sounded quite reasonable up to the last two sentences. If that’s what you really think, you should turn off Fox News and talk to some ordinary, working-class Democrats. You WILL be surprised.

carpe_diem · 2019-01-01T23:40:16.737Z

Didn’t the Democrats make a new ting where the tradition in Washington had been 51 votes,
and now it’s 60 in the Senate?

So technically it’s not as easy as you think it is in the Senate any more.
Personally, I think that the Republicans should change it back.
The Democrats keep changing things around. When the Republicans get
back in power, they need to start changing certain things back.

I don’t think a lot of American people know half the time when Democrats change
something major, because the Democrats control the Liberal media agenda, and
aren’t going to tattle on themselves for doing something that they know the American
people probably wouldn’t like or agree with.

carpe_diem · 2019-01-01T23:41:56.437Z

Trust me. It was way before I ever really started that much of Fox News, that
I think, and feel the way that I do about most of my political beliefs.

Yossarian · 2019-01-02T00:24:32.188Z

carpe_diem:

The Democrats keep changing things around.

You mean like how there always would be hearings for Judicial nominees followed by up/down votes in the senate and the dems refused to even grant the POTUS’s nominee a hearing? … oh, wait…….

Phaedrus · 2019-01-02T01:17:54.094Z

carpe_diem:

Trust me. It was way before I ever really started that much of Fox News, that
I think, and feel the way that I do about most of my political beliefs.

OK, I believe you. You thought Democrats wanted a Socialist government in this country before you started watching Fox News.

Since you didn’t limit your characterization to “many” or “most” Democrats, may I infer that you mean “all” or “almost all”? If so, you’re just … wrong. On the subjects of limited government, excessive taxation, the national debt etc., most of my Democrat and Republican friends have similar views. It’s the specifics we disagree on. That’s about ALL we disagreed on in the 70’s, and that’s what’s changed. This polarization is a relatively recent thing. It was not invented by Fox News, but they sure as Hell weaponized it (as has MSNBC etc. on the other side).

It’s impossible to have a productive discussion if you start by assuming the D has to mean Demonic (or the R means Racist).

LouC · 2019-01-02T12:15:11.264Z

AmusedObserver:

I had a surreal experience yesterday, catching a few minutes of Breitbart radio. Matt Boyle said that Beto O’Rourke would have trouble debating Trump, as Trump is (paraphrasing) “the greatest orator of our time”, and particularly singling out Trump’s ability to speak off-the-cuff.

Wait, what? Does anyone agree with the esteemed Mr. Boyle as to Trump’s oratory skills?

It’s hard to imagine that Mr. Boyle has ever listened to any other President. Even GW Bush (not the greatest speaker himself) was far better than Trump, and as for Reagan, Bill Clinton, later-years Obama, it’s not remotely close. Trump can’t even stay on topic, and generally can’t string two coherent sentences together; he’d fail an 8th grade debate class.

Off-the-cuff speaking becomes pretty easy when you don’t worry about the truth, or what you said last week.

Anyone, I don’t care who they are, who claims Fat Donald to be a “great orator” has truly self lobotomized.

TommyLucchese · 2019-01-02T18:56:35.114Z

ComfortablyNumb:

Which is a long way to say his lies make his supporters feel good. Lol

He’s enough of a salesman to know that saying simple phrases over and over and over works through sheer repetition, I’ll give him that.

mobiusptc · 2019-01-02T18:58:41.463Z

TommyLucchese:

ComfortablyNumb:

Which is a long way to say his lies make his supporters feel good. Lol

He’s enough of a salesman to know that saying simple phrases over and over and over works through sheer repetition, I’ll give him that.

that does sound familiar

ComfortablyNumb · 2019-01-02T19:07:39.637Z

TommyLucchese:

ComfortablyNumb:

Which is a long way to say his lies make his supporters feel good. Lol

He’s enough of a salesman to know that saying simple phrases over and over and over works through sheer repetition, I’ll give him that.

I have to disagree that it is some intuitive salesmanship at play here. I believe he is just simple minded himself, so that is all that he remains capable of doing. We see the same thing in his use of adjectives and descriptors. His vocabulary is very limited. Not by some sort of grand design of communicating to the people, but through sheer lack of vernacular.

SimplyTrying · 2019-01-02T20:49:24.203Z

Yeah, I think this is more likely. And he is obviously declining in mental health. Well, obvious to me.

ComfortablyNumb · 2019-01-02T20:56:57.794Z

SimplyTrying:

Yeah, I think this is more likely. And he is obviously declining in mental health. Well, obvious to me.

Not just obvious to you. It’s pretty apparent to anyone paying attention.

adroit · 2019-01-02T21:00:01.210Z

Roxiebelle:

AmusedObserver:

Off-the-cuff speaking becomes pretty easy when you don’t worry about the truth, or what you said last week.

Way off base as “off the cuff” is the most truthful speech because it’s not planned, controlled or scripted, its spontaneous! And after the decades of two faced statesmen and talking from both sides of their lying mouth politicians President Trumps “off the cuff” way of speaking resonated with voters.

Yes, spontaneous lies are so much better…

Demon · 2019-01-02T22:38:30.271Z

Lol. I watched a segment with Jerome Corsi on MSNBC. Off the cuff, and I can’t believe that even 10% or less of it was truthful.