Angry Trump slams Democrats' investigations after cutting infrastructure meeting short

The difference being that "bogged down" and "dead on arrival" aren't the same thing. A bill that gets bogged down in the Senate at least has a chance of being passed, sometime, somehow, in some form. The Democrats' bills being passed now are DOA, they have zero chance of being even considered by the Senate.

 

Which is why Trump needs to engage with the House and the Senate if he wants anything to happen on infrastructure. There needs to be a three-way negotiation in order to get anything done. Maybe not a final agreement on all details, but at least agreement on broad principles. Then there would be reconciliation between House and Senate and the president has to approve or veto.

But the fact that Trump has said that he will not participate is an abdication of his role. He has turned his back on one of the key de facto roles of the presidency. any failure to move forward on infrastructure now lies squarely at Trump's feet.

 

And you weigh in with your dissembling comment in support of the Orange Oaf.

 

The dangers associated with Big Government have now been fully documented.

Tom Paine figured out how bad government can be without all the data. Smart man.

"… from 1900 to 1987 governments MURDERED almost *170* MILLION people ... far exceeds the 34.4 million battle deaths ... from all...wars fought during the same period.... democratic governments were responsible for only about one percent of the twentieth century's death toll from democide...." THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, "The World In Numbers," "Murder By The State," Vol. 292 NO. #4, 11/20. (emphasis mine)
The Atlantic's source: "Rummels books on the subject - particularly "Death By Government" (1994) and "Statistics of Democide" (1997).

 

Do I? I'm pretty sure you're the one who brought it up.

Let's see..... some shirts, various hats like my and my wife's MAGA hats, socks, pants, suits, shoes, watches, couple kabars, my old cammies and dress blues and two 300 BLK pistols.

How about you precious?

 

Who elects state officials?

I see you abandoned your earlier reasoning of "urban/rural" living having anything to do with anything.

Is this really a concern about "the Constitution" or is it more just wanting the urban vote to count more.

You can't sit here and talk about the framers, when literally everything they did was to ensure power was not overwhelmingly located in one entity, or whatever group had the majority at the time.

Right now we have 50 individual states that govern how the people LOCALLY decide how that state is run. This provides the opportunities of 50 states coming up with great ideas as well as bad ideas.

This allows the other states in the union to learn from those mistakes, or to imitate their successes.

No matter how you slice it, your argument simply goes back to silencing anyone not in the majority of opinion at the time.

 

This all started with you misrepresenting what I wrote.

 

No, it didn't.

You claimed that Trump wasn't working with Congress, when Trump doesn't need to work with Congress.

He either signs the product of their work, or he doesn't.

You wanna try again?

 

Cooperation is not a requirement, doesn't say so in the Constitution, the president isn't supposed to work with Congress, doesn't have to, though he can, often presidents have.

Its not a bad idea for the president to work with Congress, this may help accomplish legislation the president wants to have enacted, and when he's of a different party than the majority in the House, helps add a positive "bipartisan" character to whatever gets legislated.

This isn't the case for Trump, it never will be, is impossible. Nobody in the Democrat majority will work with Trump, not honestly, not in pursuit of some compromise on a matter of common interest, doing so would earn whoever did opprobium, they'd get ostracized.

Besides, they've all made clear their disgust for Trump is simply too great. Although Trump could try to reach out to Democrat leaders in the House in an effort to secure legislation, by now he must realize this is pointless, expects rejection or some deceptive effort.

 

I took Trump at his word when he said he isn't going to work with House Democrats unless and until they end their investigation of him.

I was lectured by a KnowZip about how Congress legislates. When I pointed out it is unrealistic to expect Congress will get anything done without the President's involvement, you jumped in with your claim I said Trump was blocking Congress. I said no such thing.

Without the President's cooperation, very little will get done because Congress doesn't know what he'll sign and what he'll veto.

Trump's noncooperation isn't blocking action, but it does make action far less likely.

 

Uh huh.

You pointed out that Congress counldn't do their jobs because of the POTUS, but I pointed out you said Congress couldn't do their jobs because of the POTUS.

Wait.

Yeah, that's the same thing.

So you did say it.

Everyone knows you have to pass a Bill before you can see what happens next. Ask Pelosi.

I'm glad we agree that Trump not talking to them isn't blocking them from doing their jobs though.

Thanks.

 

I said nothing would get done. Did I say they couldn't do their jobs? No.

If I was running the House Democrats, I would announce our willingness to work with Republicans as long as they're prepared to put at least some veto-proof legislation on the Orange Oaf's desk. If I didn't get cooperation from Senate Republicans to pass legislation, I would pass bills over to the Senate and leave it at that.

No, it's not the same thing. I said almost nothing would get done, not that it couldn't get done. Presidunce Fatso isn't stopping them from doing anything.

You think it's a coincidence very few bills are vetoed?

 

No, you said nothing would get done because of Trump, to which I clearly pointed out creating bills has nothing to do with the POTUS.

Yes yes, hold on, let me put on Nas' "If I Ruled the World".

Meanwhile, Democrats haven't done anything other than talk about impeachment, Green New Deals, and ruin job opportunities in NY.

 

The only difference is the Senate can toss out all the rules and pass bills with a simple majority. They won't, of course, and that's why DOA is virtually synonymous with "bogged down."

 

Wrong. Congress won't pass bills if the Orange Oaf won't sign them. The House will hand legislation to the Senate that the Senate will never pass.

The government is still functioning, so they must be doing something.

 

Yes because President Trump is very shy about his opinion on potential legislation.

He almost never talks about it or anything.

Keep digging.

 

You're pretending the guy takes consistent positions?

How about his election promise he wouldn't cut taxes for rich people and then giving 85% of the tax cuts to people making $400,000? Promise made, promise broken.

 

Yeah, since 1980.

How much do the people making over $400k pay in total taxes. Let me guess. 85%.

 

The Bloviating Orange Oaf said rich people shouldn't get a tax cut and promised he wouldn't give them one. He lied and you still kiss his ring. What a joke!

How is Congress supposed to figure out what the Liar-in-Chief will sign?

 

You can go with that if you want to take the simpleton's approach to the tax brackets.

 

I have found that proximity doesn't equate to less or more corruption. Neither does the size of the government. I've seen local city governments so corrupt you'd think you lived in a community run by the Mafia. Georgia & NC in the last election, demonstrated some rather low standards for honesty & voting rights. I don't regard the federal government any more susceptible to wrongdoing than lesser forms of government.

 

I'm not suggesting that EVERY issue be decided by national vote. I'm supporting abandoning the Electoral College for the sole purpose of switching to a national direct vote when we elect a President & VP. Nothing else would change, and we would still elect all other public servants the way we do now. I'm not trying to favor urban or rural voters. I'm just saying EVERY AMERICAN should have an equal voice in electing our President & VP.

 

Fair enough but its still closer and more responsive.

Local and state politics impact most Americans far more than National politics.

 

What you call equality is actually tyranny.

We aren't a nation of serfs, led by the population centers.

 

1. Interesting view, but in my personal life, I've found little to no difference in responsiveness between federal & state, county or city governments. All governments are human institutions, and like all human institutions, reflect the values of those who work there. Human values tend to be redundant regardless of where they work, so in the end, there's very little difference in how you will be responded to as an individual in any government office anywhere.
2. Federal taxes impact me more than state or local ones do. Since states & smaller government agencies can't get us into wars, federal government impacts us all more than smaller government regarding warfare. But there are many other smaller issue aspects where more local government does impact us in our daily lives more than the federal system. There is certainly a place for every level of government, and all perform valuable services that should be remembered whenever discussing them. Government itself is NOT inherently evil, but as I've said, reflect the values of those working in it at any given time. One can NEVER improve government by electing candidates who run on their hatred of government. They will always do things that demean & destroy government & our faith & confidence in it.