I'm guessing that Lincoln and FDR would beat Obama in a Dem poll, but nobody else since the Founding Fathers. The aggregate Dem voter would give a pretty dumb answer too -- but not as bad as what those Republicans did! Recency bias?
It's interesting the media is still 2 steps behind reality when it comes to the GOPs bizarre media during the weekend It is not just that they are prepared to protect Trump from any crime and lie on an industrial scale In effect they are saying, so long as the president has 34 senators behind him, he is above the law. And a President who is above the law, is free to try to rig the election. The AG, SOS and the Senate are now actively involved in smearing Biden and running interference.
On Impeachment News, the pResident's lawyer (his what sixth attorney?) sent a ranty letter to Chairman Nadler declining to participate in the Judiciary committee hearings due to unfairness... https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/01/poli...ting-judiciary-hearing-impeachment/index.html In a letter to Chairman Jerrold Nadler, White House counsel to the President Pat Cipollone said, "We cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the President a fair process through additional hearings. More importantly, an invitation to an academic discussion with law professors does not begin to provide the President with an semblance of a fair process. Accordingly, under the current circumstances, we do not intend to participate in your Wednesday hearing." Cipollone accused the New York Democrat in the letter of "no doubt purposely" scheduling the hearing while Trump will be at a NATO meeting in London.
the Judiciary Committee will afford the President a fair process through additional hearings. I agree with Pat Cipollone here. Please, give Donald Trump all of the "additional hearings" he requires. I want to see him actually have to answer questions under oath and not be able to change the subject or get up and leave if he asked a direct question. The more he opens his mouth, the more he buries himself.
I do realize that there are issues where you just have to be intransigent. Civil rights was a good example. I think today dealing with climate change is becoming such an issue, if we want our civilization to survive the century. But even then, you have to find compromise as to the how it will happen. Just because we need to clean our planet, it doesn't mean that you must tie the issue to other ideological issues like income redistribution, as some are trying to do. You are not going to get results by overreacting to the obstructionists and using a crisis to try to push unrelated agenda that you care about but others don't. Nevertheless, I do understand that there are areas where there can't be compromise, even if it leads us to civil war. On most issues, we have to be able to have some bi-partisanship. If the nation is to work, congress has to always be looking for a balance and compromise, for example on issues like how much we are going to pay in taxes, how much the government will assist with healthcare, how will the nation control our borders and so on. I do realize that right now it seems impossible, but we have to look beyond the Trump-McConnell era, and at some point we have to demand a functional congress, and we won't get it by voting for even more intransigent candidates.
It's easy to forget but Boehner was ultimately forced to resign for "doing a deal" Tea Party insanity - except we now know the Tea Party was a complete fraud as far as debt warriors go The GOP has become an extremist party which has given up all democratic norms - the first warning was use of the resolutions to find the government to attack obamacare, planned parenthood etc
Well, that's like saying that as long as he has one juror behind him, a common criminal is above the law. The system can only be as good as the people involved. Sadly, those are the people we chose.
The thing is, if these are the new rules, a President will always have 34 votes, and can thus proceed to corrupt democracy in order to secure re-election
@argentine soccer fan ”we” don’t have to demand that. Republican voters have to demand that. It’s GOP politicians at fault here. (Before anyone wants to bitch check out Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein.)
Then we won't have a democracy anymore. That's why while (and if) we still do, we must vote for people of principle who put country above partisanship and ideology.
Yes, I agree that the republican voters have to demand that and they have not, but even if you are not a republican voter, you still need to look at whether the person you choose to vote for is willing to compromise and work on a bi-partisan and democratic manner, and put principle and the country -and (on some issues) basically the human race - ahead of partisanship and ideology.
It sure is not in California. We are now a one-party system, and it's not working. But the republicans are clearly to blame for their demise in the state.
Yeah, it's a very rich state, with a booming economy, and yet we could write several books on what isn't working and why.
Okay.. I'm gonna bitch anyways. Politicians tend to be a reflection of their electorate and the fact that Republicans have purged even the moderates from blue/purple states is probably indicative of something? Whether you blame the politicians for attacking their fellow politicians for being too willing to work with the other party, or the voters for preferring politicians that are more partisan, I'm not sure there are any innocents here..
Bipartisanship? From the GOP? I'm not holding my breath. I'm 32, my whole life I've seen the Republican party be nothing more than wanna be dictators and echo chambers*, and hypocrites. John Boehner didn't display partisanship when he criticized that DHS report about right wing terrorism (Because there were, gasp, former soldiers involved). Should I go on about how this same party seems to think insurance companies should have total power? that these people were against the removal of preexisting conditions tells you something. Then there's my personal favorite, the sexual hypocrisy. My god, it's hilarious that one will call for more Bible in the constitution, only to find out that they're either A. meeting escorts, B. insisting to their side pieces that they get an abortion, C. Or, in Larry Craig's case, cruising in airport bathrooms. Maybe I should add how in Wisconsin and Michigan, a lame duck GOP passed a bunch of bills to strip the incoming Democratic governors of power. Or their numerous attempts at restricting voting rights to certain people. Or the GOP endorsing Roy Moore. Or their adherence to Ronald Reagan and the Power of Tax Cuts! I'll happily endorse bipartisanship when the GOP cleans its damn house. But that isn't looking likely.
I'm trying to think who would be in similar circumstances as California. A very rich state with a booming economy fueled to a large extent by high tech but very diversified that is basically a one-party system but who is part of a confederacy to which at the present time is clearly opposed ideologically. There aren't any. The closest I can think of is Northern Ireland, although obviously they are not nearly as rich or diversified as an economy, and while I'm not an expert on their demographics, I believe they are less diverse culturally and more divided politically, not quite as much of a leftist majority as California. It would be interesting to see to what extent they are facing some of the challenges California is facing.
Okay.. We clearly had different interpretations of what you meant by what isn't working in California and why. I was thinking the internal issues within CA that aren't working well, while you seem to be including external issues as well.