This is the American Democrat party

Bullseye said:

She was sitting as a member of a US Senate committee in the nation's Capitol. Almost half the people sitting with her were from her own party. Barr was alone on the hot seat. She WAS the POWER and definitely NOT speaking truth.

Click to expand...

Thanks for showing us who you are.

JasperL said:

Government outside SS, and various healthcare programs isn't any bigger now than it was a few decades ago. We are at 1950s levels of federal employee headcount, not adjusted for population growth, and since EPA there's not been that I can identify any big expansion of government power. So I'm completely unclear about what "lack of power" Democrats are blaming for what programs' failures. We're an army with a retirement plan and healthcare for the old and poor. That's about it.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand me. I don't disagree with what you say here. Luckily, government growth rates have stagnated. We certainly have been lucky that no president has been very successful with their programs since the atrocity called the Patriot Act.

The ACA could have been a win, but it was handled in the usual abysmal governmental style and became a hybrid of good intentions and really poor execution. It makes for just another in a long list of failures when the government decided to take control of something. Pages and hours could be and often are wasted listing everything from public schools to medicaid to whatever else you want to get into.

We have a big government, but as long as the politicians continue to bless us with their failure, we won't expand to the point of open revolt just yet.

JasperL said:

The last straw will be another couple decades of an economy that funnels more and more to the top slivers. Seems obvious to me that's a lot of what's driving Trump's popularity - he's a populist. He's not "conservative" in any sense of the word, running on UHC for goodness sake, which has broad public support. That's part of my problem - the programs Democrats favor almost all of the enjoy broad support, while slashing entitlements, killing off ACA, cutting Medicaid - the only people supporting that stuff are the top 5% or so, at best. The GOP would be a dead party if not for guns, abortion and social issues. Now immigration. Has little to do with government, except the GOP like you said cannot actually cut entitlements because it would hollow out the party if they DID what they sometimes say they want to do.

Click to expand...

The thing about popular appeal is that it's a mile wide and an inch deep. A majority of the country thinks the GND sounds like a good idea ... as long as you leave out all details and don't discuss cost or payment in any way. A vast majority of democratic or democratic socialist ideas have this same appeal. It's all pretty and wonderful without the details.

Slashing medicaid and repeal of ACA would be great, as long as we actually saw replacement. I wouldn't support it unless it was directly packaged with a replacement plan. It's a very tough one because the negatives we suffer are the very reason we have top quality care and other countries can get away with pure socialized medicine. Our current system is broken, but it's where the money and advancements come from. There would have to be a system ready to go that still encouraged competition and improvement or the medical sciences would take a very detrimental hit (and our care, too).

IMO Trump is such a bad leader on these ideas because he is doing what so many other presidents and elected officials do to get elected, but he honestly doesn't have anyone else's best interest at heart. Obama made a lot of mistakes, but he really thought he was doing the best he could by the people he served. Trump does a lot of lip service to things like solving a crisis or whatever, but he is really just trying to get elected again. Even the constitutional separation of powers (a huge deal to libertarians) takes a backseat to this.

In the end, I believe in social programs and find them necessary. I think progressive taxes are evil, but required. I know there is a simpler and better way to provide all the things being discussed and promised. However, we are being served by people whose livelihood relies on promising the world to everyone and welching on that as soon as they get what they want. This means we get bigger government, run worse, and no incentive to do better.

Sorry for the long response. I'm very tired and being succinct is one of my first skills to go.

Lutherf said:

She asks no questions. She lectures. She impugns. She slanders. She misrepresents. She smears. She is indignant. She is impudent. She is self-righteous. She is irreverent. She is angry. She is hateful.




She is the face of the Democrat party.

Click to expand...

Why ask questions of someone who won't give a straight answer?

Mustachio said:

What do you mean by "landed"?

Click to expand...

My comment was specific to Barr testimony before the Senate committee only. During Barr's testimony, none of the diatribes of mis-characterizations, fabrications, and out right lying, all grandstanding, landed a hit on Barr, who turned a polite phrase which also happened to clearly illustrated the idiocy of the Senate Democrats.

Do you mean it's effective when Trump decides that he's going to call somebody something like "poopy face" or another insult fit for a third grader but it's not effective when you rail against a man who staged a press conference to completely misrepresent the findings of the Mueller report and then lie to congress because nobody, at that point, had leaked evidence to the press that he lied to congress?

Click to expand...

If in reference to Barr, he most certainly was not lying.

If in reference to Trump and his stupid Twitter slap fights, I agree. That's pretty pointless and useless. But he does it anyway. :shrug:

But I actually agree with you. The people who decided the last Presidential election voted based on the strength of character it takes to call somebody "poopy face," or in actuality "Dumbo," "The Dick," "lyin' Hillary," (ironic) "lying James Comey," "leaking James Comey," "lyin' Ted" (there seems to be a theme here), "Rejected Senator Flake," "Al Frankenstein," "Highly Conflicted Bob Mueller," "Fat Jerry," "Cheatin' Obama," "Little Marco," "Crazy Bernie," "Sleazy Adam Schiff," (more irony), "Dumb as a Rock Tillerson," and "Low-IQ Maxine Waters"? Do those land with you or strike you as something that's just about the most childish thing you've ever heard any adult say? I vote the latter.

Click to expand...

Please see my last sentence above.

apdst said:

Congress doesn't have the authority to issue subpoenas, nor view docs without a legislative purpose. It doesn't have unlimited power, like you think it does.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about unlimited power?

They must certainly do have the authority to issue subpoenas that apply to each individual committee as they deem needed and have the authority to compel individuals to produce documents in regards to said subpoena.

So as a quick recap.... the House Oversight Committee would indeed have the authority to subpoena testimony in regards to obstruction of justice to decide if impeachment was going to proceed.

You don't know what you are talking about... presumably because whatever taking head you got that idea from didnt either.

It's okay...I got you.

Captain Adverse said:

IMO the attributes and tactics you rightly listed as demonstrated by her tirade are mirrored every day in this very Forum by minds bent similar to hers.

Click to expand...

You mean by minds bent towards honesty. I find it amusing how relatively intelligent people like yourself and the op can lose any sense of objectivity.

Barr’s summary was carefully worded to be deceptive while technically truthful. I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Clinton’s words were technically truthful but deliberately dishonest. The same is true of Barr’s summary.

Now if you can’t admit that then you’re hopelessly lost in partisan delusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lutherf said:

She asks no questions. She lectures. She impugns. She slanders. She misrepresents. She smears. She is indignant. She is impudent. She is self-righteous. She is irreverent. She is angry. She is hateful.




She is the face of the Democrat party.

Click to expand...

At least she’s not dishonest. Barr’s dishonesty while defending a corrupt president is the face of the Republican Party. I don’t know how anyone can be proud to be a Republican today.

The new Republican motto is “Is it a crime?”



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Keridan said:

The ACA could have been a win, but it was handled in the usual abysmal governmental style and became a hybrid of good intentions and really poor execution. It makes for just another in a long list of failures when the government decided to take control of something.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The ACA is flawed and limited, because there weren't the votes to pass a better bill (thanks to Republicans almost entirely), but it DID add tens of millions to the insured, it DID get rid of junk insurance, it DID get rid of insurance companies refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions, and it DID result in periods of the lowest cost increases in several decades. It did HUGE good despite its limits.

Keridan said:

The thing about popular appeal is that it's a mile wide and an inch deep. A majority of the country thinks the GND sounds like a good idea ... as long as you leave out all details and don't discuss cost or payment in any way. A vast majority of democratic or democratic socialist ideas have this same appeal. It's all pretty and wonderful without the details.

Click to expand...

Wrong. That's YOUR opinion (which I think is wrong.) The progressive proposals are 'wonderful' WITH all the details.

Slashing medicaid and repeal of ACA would be great, as long as we actually saw replacement.

Click to expand...

Why would that be a good thing - especially when ANY replacement that's going to be offered as a practical matter will have no purpose but to get the programs? I'm not saying policies can't be improved, I'm asking why 'repealing' what we have instead of improving it is a good thing?

bullseyelqcs said:

Who said anything about unlimited power?

They must certainly do have the authority to issue subpoenas that apply to each individual committee as they deem needed and have the authority to compel individuals to produce documents in regards to said subpoena.

So as a quick recap.... the House Oversight Committee would indeed have the authority to subpoena testimony in regards to obstruction of justice to decide if impeachment was going to proceed.

You don't know what you are talking about... presumably because whatever taking head you got that idea from didnt either.

It's okay...I got you.

Click to expand...

Right there is you saying "unlimited power". Congress can't issue subpoenas as it "deems needed". There are times they deem it needed, but there are no legal grounds.

apdst said:

Right there is you saying "unlimited power". Congress can't issue subpoenas as it "deems needed". There are times they deem it needed, but there are no legal grounds.

Click to expand...

Did moving that goalpost hurt your back?

You claimed they did not have the power to subpoena persons and document. You were flat out wrong. They have the power to do both.

As they deem needed doesnt imply unlimited power, since you left off the limiting part of the statement anyway.... with regards to each individual committee.... that's the limiter. Ways and Means couldnt subpoena testimony for something to do with something in the purview of the Armed Services Committee.... that doesnt means the ASC couldn't do so, however.

That all said, you would still be wrong, since one could presume that should Congress deem it necessary to subpoena someone for some reason, you can pretty much assume they would be able to shoehorn the request into a committee to get it done. So even without having "unlimited" power, they really in essence do.

Theres also this with regard to Contempt of Congress:

Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.

Click to expand...

So again, you are wrong.

bullseyelqcs said:

Did moving that goalpost hurt your back?

You claimed they did not have the power to subpoena persons and document. You were flat out wrong. They have the power to do both.

As they deem needed doesnt imply unlimited power, since you left off the limiting part of the statement anyway.... with regards to each individual committee.... that's the limiter. Ways and Means couldnt subpoena testimony for something to do with something in the purview of the Armed Services Committee.... that doesnt means the ASC couldn't do so, however.

That all said, you would still be wrong, since one could presume that should Congress deem it necessary to subpoena someone for some reason, you can pretty much assume they would be able to shoehorn the request into a committee to get it done. So even without having "unlimited" power, they really in essence do.

Theres also this with regard to Contempt of Congress:



So again, you are wrong.

Click to expand...

No, I said Congress only has the power to subpoena persons and papers when there's a legitimate legislative purpose. Did lying hurt your tongue?

apdst said:

No, I said Congress only has the power to subpoena persons and papers when there's a legitimate legislative purpose. Did lying hurt your tongue?

Click to expand...

Okay....my mistake for THAT part.

You are STILL wrong about it though. Each individual committee has the power to subpoena persons and papers for anything that would fall under that committees jurisdiction.

Investigation of potential wrongdoing IS legitimate legislative purpose, by the way.

Craig234 said:

Wrong. The ACA is flawed and limited, because there weren't the votes to pass a better bill (thanks to Republicans almost entirely), but it DID add tens of millions to the insured, it DID get rid of junk insurance, it DID get rid of insurance companies refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions, and it DID result in periods of the lowest cost increases in several decades. It did HUGE good despite its limits.

Click to expand...

Sure, the very divisive bill accomplished a few things. It's still a failure compared to the original design. It's another thing the government can't actually accomplish, despite promising the world. You even state that a better option just wasn't going to happen. Even the half-measure that did get passed is always on the verge of repeal.

Craig234 said:

Wrong. That's YOUR opinion (which I think is wrong.) The progressive proposals are 'wonderful' WITH all the details.

Click to expand...

Show a poll that has a high opinion of progressive proposals and I'll be happy to show the poorly phrased or vague questions or skewed polling sample. There are still too many rational people in the country for this to change.

This is coming from someone who would love to see some well-done social programs, but has seen too much of what government brings us to have faith in what will actually pass.

Craig234 said:

Why would that be a good thing - especially when ANY replacement that's going to be offered as a practical matter will have no purpose but to get the programs? I'm not saying policies can't be improved, I'm asking why 'repealing' what we have instead of improving it is a good thing?

Click to expand...

Note that I was pretty specific about replacement. My statement was not encouraging stripping away existing measures without putting improvements in place. There is no way to go but up anyway.

Lutherf said:

She asks no questions. She lectures. She impugns. She slanders. She misrepresents. She smears. She is indignant. She is impudent. She is self-righteous. She is irreverent. She is angry. She is hateful.




She is the face of the Democrat party.

Click to expand...

No, she really isn't, but after the last couple of years be glad that she isn't, yet.

Keridan said:

Sure, the very divisive bill accomplished a few things. It's still a failure compared to the original design. It's another thing the government can't actually accomplish, despite promising the world. You even state that a better option just wasn't going to happen. Even the half-measure that did get passed is always on the verge of repeal.



Show a poll that has a high opinion of progressive proposals and I'll be happy to show the poorly phrased or vague questions or skewed polling sample. There are still too many rational people in the country for this to change.

This is coming from someone who would love to see some well-done social programs, but has seen too much of what government brings us to have faith in what will actually pass.



Note that I was pretty specific about replacement. My statement was not encouraging stripping away existing measures without putting improvements in place. There is no way to go but up anyway.

Click to expand...

And right now this country is suffering the consequences of a decade long campaign slandering the idea of government and people are no longer willing to believe that government is capable of enacting policy for the good of society.

People point at how great the economy is, but what about the imbalance of power growing between corporations and workers, a gap that continues to grow as unions are strict down and workers lose more and more rights to corporations.

The power Of corporations and their insatiable greed is destroying American society and what people want is someone to address the broken balance of power.

Craig234 said:

Wrong. The ACA is flawed and limited, because there weren't the votes to pass a better bill (thanks to Republicans almost entirely), but it DID add tens of millions to the insured, it DID get rid of junk insurance, it DID get rid of insurance companies refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions, and it DID result in periods of the lowest cost increases in several decades. It did HUGE good despite its limits.

Click to expand...

There votes to pass a better bill were definitely there if most of the Dems actually cared about passing a better bill. They "compromised" and went with the damn Republican plan before even trying to do something more like a single payer system. There was a Democratic super majority at the time the ACA was passed, iirc, so they wouldn't have needed a single Republican for anything.

Obama and most of the Dems didn't, and still don't want an actual single payer / medicare for all system, because they're in the pockets of the corporations that profit from that, just like the Republicans are - although maybe not to the same extent.

Unitedwestand13 said:

And right now this country is suffering the consequences of a decade long campaign slandering the idea of government and people are no longer willing to believe that government is capable of enacting policy for the good of society.

People point at how great the economy is, but what about the imbalance of power growing between corporations and workers, a gap that continues to grow as unions are strict down and workers lose more and more rights to corporations.

The power Of corporations and their insatiable greed is destroying American society and what people want is someone to address the broken balance of power.

Click to expand...

Your saying better to dance with the devil that brought you? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm honestly asking.

Sure, government is falling apart and overrun by partisan hackery, but those corporations are making too much money! Better turn to government to save us! They've done everything else so well!

I have trouble putting faith in a group that has created the most unheard of debt in history and is still at a deficit that means borrowing just under half of every dollar spent. Every publicly held monopoly fails worse than any business.

I will admit the government has become very good at pointing the finger at those corporations and sending people looking another direction to avoid discussion of their own failures. In fact, one of the very few things they do well is spin and distract.

Keridan said:

Sure, the very divisive bill accomplished a few things. It's still a failure compared to the original design. It's another thing the government can't actually accomplish, despite promising the world. You even state that a better option just wasn't going to happen. Even the half-measure that did get passed is always on the verge of repeal.



Show a poll that has a high opinion of progressive proposals and I'll be happy to show the poorly phrased or vague questions or skewed polling sample. There are still too many rational people in the country for this to change.

This is coming from someone who would love to see some well-done social programs, but has seen too much of what government brings us to have faith in what will actually pass.



Note that I was pretty specific about replacement. My statement was not encouraging stripping away existing measures without putting improvements in place. There is no way to go but up anyway.

Click to expand...

The ACA was lame because it was just a variation on Romneycare ( Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia ) from the early 2000s, which itself was a variation on the Clinton health care plan of 1993 - Wikipedia . Just a milquetoast half-measure to keep the profits going to the top, while trying to make the rest of us complacent.

As for progressive proposals that are popular -

Taxing the rich and increasing spending on necessary programs over cutting taxes - Fox News Poll: Voters favor taxing the wealthy, increasing domestic spending | Fox News

Medicare for All - 70 percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' proposal | TheHill

Keridan said:

Your saying better to dance with the devil that brought you? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm honestly asking.

Sure, government is falling apart and overrun by partisan hackery, but those corporations are making too much money! Better turn to government to save us! They've done everything else so well!

I have trouble putting faith in a group that has created the most unheard of debt in history and is still at a deficit that means borrowing just under half of every dollar spent. Every publicly held monopoly fails worse than any business.

I will admit the government has become very good at pointing the finger at those corporations and sending people looking another direction to avoid discussion of their own failures. In fact, one of the very few things they do well is spin and distract.

Click to expand...

The institution of Government is not the problem, and neither are cooperations as a whole solely to blame.

The true culprits are the individuals who have allowed their self interest and greed to cloud their minds and made them abandon the purpose of government, which is to serve the people.


I blame modern corporations because they exemplify bottomless greed and the ultimate corruption of individualism.


Government as a institution is only as corrupt as the people elected to it.

nekrodev said:

1) The ACA was lame because it was just a variation on Romneycare ( Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia ) from the early 2000s, which itself was a variation on the Clinton health care plan of 1993 - Wikipedia . Just a milquetoast half-measure to keep the profits going to the top, while trying to make the rest of us complacent.

As for progressive proposals that are popular -

2) Taxing the rich and increasing spending on necessary programs over cutting taxes - Fox News Poll: Voters favor taxing the wealthy, increasing domestic spending | Fox News

3) Medicare for All - 70 percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' proposal | TheHill

Click to expand...

1) I thought this was common knowledge and am not sure what you want me to take away from it.

2) Progressive taxation is a long-accepted necessary evil. I wouldn't exactly call it progressive when there are very few in any party that seriously claim flat tax is a reasonable option.

3) This is a great example of people not being informed. The question simply asks if they would support M4A and doesn't talk about how there is no plan at all for funding it, that the CBO said implementing it would be incredibly complicated because no one has even bothered to draw up a road map for it, and there is no discussion of the costs ranging from higher taxes to facing the deductible problems medicare already faces.

The idea is so vague, it sounds like a pretty idea. Just like any UHC will get a higher score as long as the participants aren't informed of any downsides in the proposed item.

Unitedwestand13 said:

Government as a institution is only as corrupt as the people elected to it.

Click to expand...

this isn't strictly true, although it definitely does cover most of the problems. at any point, people could have voted for someone different than who they did. however, that does ignore the reality of money's influence on politics, the media and the establishment politicians conspiring, and government squashing left-ist movements.

Keridan said:

1) I thought this was common knowledge and am not sure what you want me to take away from it.

2) Progressive taxation is a long-accepted necessary evil. I wouldn't exactly call it progressive when there are very few in any party that seriously claim flat tax is a reasonable option.

3) This is a great example of people not being informed. The question simply asks if they would support M4A and doesn't talk about how there is no plan at all for funding it, that the CBO said implementing it would be incredibly complicated because no one has even bothered to draw up a road map for it, and there is no discussion of the costs ranging from higher taxes to facing the deductible problems medicare already faces.

The idea is so vague, it sounds like a pretty idea. Just like any UHC will get a higher score as long as the participants aren't informed of any downsides in the proposed item.

Click to expand...

1 - should be common knowledge, but it definitely doesn't seem to be, especially among conservatives

2 -progressive taxation is being championed by actual progressives in the Democratic party (ie Bernie Sanders and AOC), and not supported by any GOP politicians, regardless of the fact that it's popular among all people, including Republican voters

3- the CBO has made no judgements on Medicare for All because no proposal has come up for a vote, and there's no chance of it passing in this administration, so it would be a waste of time to look into it. other studies, based on Bernie Sanders submitted bill find that it would likely save us money in the long term, as much as $5 trillion over 10 years. There are dozens of other countries we can look at and draw from to implement the best version possible. it's completely uncontroversial to say it would be better that our current system, though, both in terms of cost and benefit.

DiAnna said:

OMG.

:doh


This is what you got out of that entire charade of "poor Trump is the victim of unfair prosecution" defense Barr presented? THIS??

Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? What "defense"?

DiAnna said:

Damn wimmins, getting angry in public and stating their minds; somebody ought to do something about 'em.

:roll:

Click to expand...

Got nothing to do with her gender.

bullseyelqcs said:

So the junior senator from Hawaii is the face of the Democratic Party now? Come on, man.....try harder.

I bet if you put her picture in front of 100 Democrats who aren't from Hawaii, they couldn't tell you who she is. Hell, I would bet most Democrats from Hawaii couldn't tell you to be honest.

Click to expand...

That's probably true of about 75% of all senate Dems. Maybe even higher.