• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYT: Trump’s ‘Great National Infrastructure Program’? Stalled [W:258]

code1211 said:
Trump is the Chief Executive.

In my company and I suspect every organization on the planet, the Chief Executive states a goal, defines a budget and directs his subordinates to execute the plans to achieve the goals. Trump said he wants the infrastructure improved. Said what it should cost. Now the people who appropriate funds have to go to work.
Click to expand...

What does the CEO of your organization do when seven months go by and no progress has been made?
 
apdst said:
If he wasn't fighting off the resistatards, he would have more time to work on his plan.
Click to expand...

Republicans won the white house the House, and the Senate.

That he's "fighting democrats" sounds like he's one dumb mother****er. Is that what you're saying? Trump is a dumb mother****er squandering his accidental rise to power by "fight democrats" when Republicans control the WH/and congress?

Then you agree with the OP. Finally, we agree on something.
 
MTAtech said:
Go golfing. Oh wait...
Click to expand...

Ooh, ooh. Meet privately with Putin!
Maybe hold a fluffer rally!

I'm sensing this could be a long list...
 
MTAtech said:
First, Obama didn't have a filibuster proof senate (e.g. 60 votes.) They barely had a majority. Al Franken was seated nearly eight months after winning his Senate seat. Even if the Senate was controlled by Democrats (e.g. 50 seats), there were two other facts. a) there were Democrats in the Senate that vote as if they were Republicans. b) Republicans liberally used the filibuster to block legislation.

The Dems never had 60 Senate seats post-2008. They had between 56 and 58 seats. For that very brief period they had 58 seats with consistent support from Bernie Sanders and inconsistent support from Joe Lieberman. The Democrats hardly had 60 Dem seats, and hardly 60 reliable Dem votes. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...jority-in-senate-so-close-and-yet-so-far.html

Second, by this time in 2009: H.R. 3962, the Affordable Healthcare for America Act, was introduced. That means the lengthy law was already written by July 2009. There is no corresponding bill that the Republicans have regarding infrastructure.

Third, infrastructure is a national necessity. The federal government has the ability to borrow unlimited amounts of money at low interest rates right now. We really don't have to invent convoluted ways to rebuild.
Click to expand...

First to say that democrats did not have a filibuster proof majority in 2009 is silly. Bernie Sanders is hardly a Republican partisan and Lieberman had earlier been the VP candidate for Democrats. He was disowned over foreign policy not social issues.

To say that ACA was finalized in July 2009 is just factually untrue.

As folks like to say, you can have your own opinions but not your own facts.
 
washunut said:
First to say that democrats did not have a filibuster proof majority in 2009 is silly. Bernie Sanders is hardly a Republican partisan and Lieberman had earlier been the VP candidate for Democrats. He was disowned over foreign policy not social issues.

To say that ACA was finalized in July 2009 is just factually untrue.

As folks like to say, you can have your own opinions but not your own facts.
Click to expand...
A filibuster proof majority is 60 votes. As I said above, for a very brief period they had 58 seats with consistent support from Bernie Sanders and inconsistent support from Joe Lieberman. 58 < 60.
 
Fletch said:
Boy we cant get 3 posts into a thread without some intolerant liberal denouncing the intelligence of those who disagree with him. :roll: Here is a piece of advice: next time there is an election, don't run the worst candidate available and maybe you will win. The truly stupid people were the ones who put Hillary at the top of the ticket. Stop blaming others for your ****up
Click to expand...

You know what's even more stupid than that?

Assuming that anyone who understands that Trump is a fraud is a Hillary supporter. Now, that's just totally absurd.
 
Fletch said:
Not sure why you used my post to launch your rant. It is the left that hates the fact Trump won. So if you are upset that Trump is there, blame your party for running the worst candidate in US history to oppose him.
Click to expand...

Oh, I think there are quite a few Republicans who hate the fact that Trump won also. Some of them are blaming the Democrats for getting him elected. Note I didn't say "crediting" but "blaming."
 
This is absolutely an example of why he should put away the Twitter, stop responding the legions of ****heads motivated solely by their hatred, and press on with his actual agenda. He does himself and the country a disservice. If he is going to have a snowballs chance in Hell...he has to change. Others dont have to change...so **** them.
 
VanceMack said:
This is absolutely an example of why he should put away the Twitter, stop responding the legions of ****heads motivated solely by their hatred, and press on with his actual agenda. He does himself and the country a disservice. If he is going to have a snowballs chance in Hell...he has to change. Others dont have to change...so **** them.
Click to expand...

He needs to learn to ignore trolls, not respond to them in kind.
 
MTAtech said:
Anyone can write legislation but only a Member of Congress can formally introduce it. There is ample examples of the Executive Branch writing legislation and asking Congress to pass it. The Civil Rights Act is one that comes to mind.

What is absurd is going around the country promising to take certain legislative actions and then, once elected, hanging back like a bystander expecting Congress reading his mind as to what to introduce.

In modern history, presidents took the initiative, instead of a golf club, to pass his own agenda. By the way, Trump acknowledged this -- just was lying about follow-through.
Click to expand...

Okay, I suppose half a truth is better than none...

If the Obamacare debacle is corrected with a rational plan, a trillion dollars will be freed to use in a tax reform plan.

Whether the healthcare is passed or not is first step of many, but the rest will depend on this out come.

Is this too hard to grasp?
 
Greenbeard said:
What does the CEO of your organization do when seven months go by and no progress has been made?
Click to expand...

Heads roll. Trump seems to have no problem firing those he hired when they displease.

If Trump could fire Senators, I think he would have. Trump may have thought the Senators who previously voted to repeal Obamacare would also do it when it counts. To those of us who feel there is no integrity in DC, this is no surprise.

Maybe he thought they did have integrity...

I find it interesting that just about all the Republican Senators ran saying they would repeal Obamacare and now they won't do it.

They don't seem to fear voter retaliation at the polls. I wonder why they don't fear a voter uprising on this.
 
code1211 said:
They don't seem to fear voter retaliation at the polls. I wonder why they don't fear a voter uprising on this.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because the replacement is literally the least popular piece of legislation proposed in my lifetime?
 
Greenbeard said:
Perhaps because the replacement is literally the least popular piece of legislation proposed in my lifetime?
Click to expand...

The question is not so much the quality of the proposed replacement.

It is assumed that the there was going to need to be a replacement. What they offered is obviously a stinker.

The question, though, is why was there nothing good to offer and why don't they fear voter retaliation?

It seems odd to me that they feel the best way to get re-elected is to fail to honor their promise to those that elected them.
 
joG said:
Yep. I like Trump about as much as Bloomberg and Huffington do.
Click to expand...

Then why are you adopting Trump's talking points? If you think the story in the OP isn't correct in some way, or is questionable in some way, be specific about what parts you don't believe. If you can't do that, all you're doing is ignoring the message and attacking the messenger, just like Trump tells you to do.

Bottom line is we do NOT in fact know the NYT cannot be relied on in their reporting. Or, at least they are no more unreliable now than they were 20 years ago, or 40 years ago.

And as to the general environment being somehow unique, give me a break. Anyone who lived through the Clinton or Bush or Obama years sees absolutely nothing new with regards to partisan media attacking the POTUS and his administration. The only thing unique about the current era is we've never seen a POTUS as incompetent and oblivious to the workings of government as Trump is, nor an administration staffed with so many people at the highest levels who are equally ignorant, or interested in observing even basic norms established over the centuries. We've never seen anything like Trump, and so the reporting reflects that, accurately.
 
Greenbeard said:
That strategy hasn't failed them yet.
Click to expand...

I suppose you're right.

Republicans have promised to restrain spending for decades. Democrats have promised to end Social injustice for decades.

Both are all show and no go.

Both continue to get elected.

Interesting scam we fall for year after year.
 
Fletch said:
He needs to learn to ignore trolls, not respond to them in kind.
Click to expand...
It would help if he didnt initiate a lot of the trolling...
 
code1211 said:
Trump is the Chief Executive.

In my company and I suspect every organization on the planet, the Chief Executive states a goal, defines a budget and directs his subordinates to execute the plans to achieve the goals. Trump said he wants the infrastructure improved. Said what it should cost. Now the people who appropriate funds have to go to work.
Click to expand...

Yeah, his plan is "Great big infrastructure, super infrastructure, the best infrastructure!!" It's hard to believe the rest of government isn't just going to town on the infrastructure plan, with such clear articulation of policy goals and a plan to get it done coming from the Trump WH......

In the case of Trump with the US Congress and Obama, too, for that matter, the health plan that was put to a vote was not at all similar to what the CEO asked for.
Click to expand...

Yeah, see above. He had no plan because he's virtually completely ignorant of the policy details of healthcare like he's ignorant of the policy details of everything else. Who the hell knows what Trump wanted besides the impossible, which was a plan that would cover everyone at lower cost with no downside and lower taxes?

As far as the infrastructure proposal, it seems like the Senate is less than willing to do anything. Very Senatorial in that.

Will the Senators ever be taken to task by their constituents? How many times can they promise to get something done and fail to do so?

In the case of THIS Senate, BOTH parties oppose the man in the White House. Success will be difficult.
Click to expand...

I do have to admit I have no idea what McConnell's plan is on this or anything else. He appears to want to give the finger to Democrats on EVERYTHING, so maybe the long term plan is to jettison the filibuster entirely. If not that, I can't figure it out.
 
Fletch said:
He needs to learn to ignore trolls, not respond to them in kind.
Click to expand...

Yes, the troll POTUS should learn to ignore trolls. I agree. And also quit being a troll on Twitter.
 
JasperL said:
Then why are you adopting Trump's talking points? If you think the story in the OP isn't correct in some way, or is questionable in some way, be specific about what parts you don't believe. If you can't do that, all you're doing is ignoring the message and attacking the messenger, just like Trump tells you to do.

Bottom line is we do NOT in fact know the NYT cannot be relied on in their reporting. Or, at least they are no more unreliable now than they were 20 years ago, or 40 years ago.

And as to the general environment being somehow unique, give me a break. Anyone who lived through the Clinton or Bush or Obama years sees absolutely nothing new with regards to partisan media attacking the POTUS and his administration. The only thing unique about the current era is we've never seen a POTUS as incompetent and oblivious to the workings of government as Trump is, nor an administration staffed with so many people at the highest levels who are equally ignorant, or interested in observing even basic norms established over the centuries. We've never seen anything like Trump, and so the reporting reflects that, accurately.
Click to expand...

Anyone that says they don't see a difference to the reporting in the past few administrations, I would not trust.
 
joG said:
Anyone that says they don't see a difference to the reporting in the past few administrations, I would not trust.
Click to expand...

I would dig up the NYTimes article from July 2009 about how Obama hadn't moved on his infrastructure agenda at all, except Obama got his passed in February.
 
LowDown said:
New York Times:

Trump is a clown who will be eliminated as a candidate early in the primaries.

Trump will never win the election, the odds are 95% against it.

The Trump campaign is "in chaos".

The Trump transition is "in chaos".

The Trump White House is "in chaos".

And all the Russia collusion stuff.

The New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media has lied and lied and lied about Trump in matters great and small (detailed here), and yet you bring us more stuff from the Times about Trump.
Click to expand...

Mexico will pay for THE WALL, and yeah, no chaos in america is there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom