Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Doug1029

The Art of Compromise

203 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Tatetopa
2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

'm pretty sure the democrat controlled house passes bills that they know are not in a state the republican controlled senate will vote Yes on. They do it for optics, so they can say "look what the Republicans are against", without addressing the reasons the Republicans voted no. Then they don't bother revising it into a compromised state.

Indeed they do, but the Republicans can offer their own version.  These bills are not even coming up for a vote.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
22 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

How many of those house bills are gathering dust on Mitch McConnell's desk.  It is  true to say they have not done enough, but the whole story is a bit more  nuanced and some blame can be shared

Yes I agree. I was addressing farmers laying all blame on one side. That said there has been an extraordinary effort focused on ousting the president based on obviously false allegations that began before he was even elected. 

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
56 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Yes I agree. I was addressing farmers laying all blame on one side. That said there has been an extraordinary effort focused on ousting the president based on obviously false allegations that began before he was even elected. 

OMG you actually believe that huh? :lol:

 

43ca3975b4c1a27d4cba4410a90ef752d30aa051

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
On 11/1/2019 at 7:53 PM, Doug1029 said:

Politics has been called the art of compromise, but there isn't a whole lot of the art in evidence these days.

Is the problem that the political model you follow rewards or engenders division and obstruction rather than compromise. Hasn't it been effectively set up to, or operated such as to, pit one party against the other.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
19 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Is the problem that the political model you follow rewards or engenders division and obstruction rather than compromise. Hasn't it been effectively set up to, or operated such as to, pit one party against the other.

What nation's model do you prefer, and what is different about it's structure?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

What nation's model do you prefer, and what is different about it's structure?

two good questions neither of which I know the answer to off hand. Is there one? I don't know but I will think on it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

OMG you actually believe that huh? :lol:

 

43ca3975b4c1a27d4cba4410a90ef752d30aa051

 

 

Why? Because trump cooperated with Russia in order to get elected? Yeah. That happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
16 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

What nation's model do you prefer, and what is different about it's structure?

 

13 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

two good questions neither of which I know the answer to off hand. Is there one? I don't know but I will think on it.

Russia :gun:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, OverSword said:

Why? Because trump cooperated with Russia in order to get elected? Yeah. That happened.

No because only the most laughably blind partisan can claim it wasnt worth investigating or that law enforcement investigating or news media reporting on the investigation is some kind of conspiracy. 

The fact that you actually believe that drivel really brings home my initial point.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

No because only the most laughably blind partisan can claim it wasnt worth investigating or that law enforcement investigating or news media reporting on the investigation is some kind of conspiracy. 

The fact that you actually believe that drivel really brings home my initial point.

Yeah, not a republican and that investigation should have been about a month not 2.5 years.  See, as a third party voter what I saw until this phone call has been the boy calling wolf costing himself a ton of credibility. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
9 hours ago, OverSword said:

Yeah, not a republican and that investigation should have been about a month not 2.5 years.

It did seem to go on a long time because MSM kept it in the spotlight all the time.  I would hope for a long and thorough investigation for something that serious, but it was not designed to be titillating  on a 24/7 news cycle.  For all the seeming tediousness, nine individuals were indicted, an additional 13 Russian nationals in one indictment and 12 Russian GRU officers in another.   So on the average a person or group every two months.  

Some people will choose not to believe the evidence, yet it seems that a case was made against 12 GRU officers for stealing Clinton emails and 13 more for false identities, troll farming and interfering with 2016 elections on the Internet.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
16 hours ago, OverSword said:

Yeah, not a republican and that investigation should have been about a month not 2.5 years.  See, as a third party voter what I saw until this phone call has been the boy calling wolf costing himself a ton of credibility. 

Yeah youre not the only third party voter in the conversation. :tu:  See, as a third party voter what I see is a bunch of people being duped , often willingly, by the nonstop propaganda and conspiracy mongering from the right which is built wholly on lies . Your post above being a great example.

Youre absolutely right though without the obstruction from the WH and their sycophants the investigation would have been much much shorter.

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
17 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

OMG you actually believe that huh? :lol:

 

43ca3975b4c1a27d4cba4410a90ef752d30aa051

 

 

If we had a wall this meme wouldn't exist.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

I'd give up the Socialism that is so infused into our system for a government to function the way it was intended to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

If the Progs are Count Rugen, that would make Conservatives Inigo Montoya.  I like the way he compromises after the way Rugen dismissed him all those years ago.  Just replace Inigo's father for this nation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

If we had a wall this meme wouldn't exist.

It would as long as Amazon sells sawzalls  :lol:

2qxrwr.jpg

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
On 11/1/2019 at 4:34 PM, aztek said:

we already have equal right for all, it is called anti discrimination act of 1964 iirc. seems like you want special treatment.

universal health care is a myth, we have enough evidence to believe gvmnt will not make what we already have, better, 

i want less gvnmt, less regulations, , less indoctrination in schools,  more accountability, for gvmnt workers,  new, very tight regulations, for unions.

 

 

Women still receive about 78 cents on the dollar compared to men.  That's not equal.

We do not have universal health care, but some other countries do.  We have the ability to offer it.  My health care costs were over $11,000 last year and that's without adding in the cost of insurance.  Insurance companies syphon off $300 million dollars in profits each year that would otherwise be available for health care.  Bernie's Medicare for All plan would cost about $7800 per year per person.  So what if that's a tax increase - it is more than offset by the elimination of healthcare insurance premiums.

Less regulation means that big businesses are free to do away with your freedoms.  You can be fired for criticizing your employer, for picketing a business, or for organizing a boycott, Bill of Rights be damned.  You can also be fired for participating in a cause your employer doesn't like, even though you are legally entitled to do so.  A business is not a person.  Why?  Because it can't die.

I'm not sure what you mean by more accountability for govt workers.  I have production targets and always have had.

Unions are the only thing standing between you and business-dictatorship.  They stand for the respect and dignity of the working man, for workplace safety and for a living wage.  Thanks to unions we now have a five-day, forty-hour work week, paid holidays, sick leave and a degree of job security.  Unions forced the companies to abolish the practice of sailing with hatches open, expecting the crew to secure them en route.  The loss of ships and crews did not deter the companies.  Unions insisted on Plimsoll marks on ships - those numbers painted on the hull to show how heavily the ship is loaded.  More than one ship (like the Kamloops) was lost due to simple over-loading.

Doug

I got side-tracked, like everybody else.  From your post, I take it that you DO NOT want equal pay for women, universal health care, big govt or strong unions.  You DO want smaller govt, less indoctrination in schools (no civics courses, no history courses) and more govt accountability (meaning more bureaucrats to keep track of each other).

Thanks,

Doug

 

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
12 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Women still receive about 78 cents on the dollar compared to men.  That's not equal.

We do not have universal health care, but some other countries do.  We have the ability to offer it.  My health care costs were over $11,000 last year and that's without adding in the cost of insurance.  Insurance companies syphon off $300 million dollars in profits each year that would otherwise be available for health care.  Bernie's Medicare for All plan would cost about $7800 per year per person.  So what if that's a tax increase - it is more than offset by the elimination of healthcare insurance premiums.

Less regulation means that big businesses are free to do away with your freedoms.  You can be fired for criticizing your employer, for picketing a business, or for organizing a boycott, Bill of Rights be damned.  You can also be fired for participating in a cause your employer doesn't like, even though you are legally entitled to do so.  A business is not a person.  Why?  Because it can't die.

I'm not sure what you mean by more accountability for govt workers.  I have production targets and always have had.

Unions are the only thing standing between you and business-dictatorship.  They stand for the respect and dignity of the working man, for workplace safety and for a living wage.  Thanks to unions we now have a five-day, forty-hour work week, paid holidays, sick leave and a degree of job security.  Unions forced the companies to abolish the practice of sailing with hatches open, expecting the crew to secure them en route.  The loss of ships and crews did not deter the companies.  Unions insisted on Plimsoll marks on ships - those numbers painted on the hull to show how heavily the ship is loaded.  More than one ship (like the Kamloops) was lost due to simple over-loading.

Doug

I got side-tracked, like everybody else.  From your post, I take it that you DO NOT want equal pay for women, universal health care, big govt or strong unions.  You DO want smaller govt, less indoctrination in schools (no civics courses, no history courses) and more govt accountability (meaning more bureaucrats to keep track of each other).

Thanks,

Doug

 

7800 per person per year...

So 650 a month ?

I pay 187 a month for my insurance. I don't see how I win here.

Even if I had a family I would be paying 250 a month.

Obivously that's not counting co pays and such. But I have trouble seeing it add up to a benefit to me.

 

Edited by spartan max2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
9 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

It did seem to go on a long time because MSM kept it in the spotlight all the time.  I would hope for a long and thorough investigation for something that serious, but it was not designed to be titillating  on a 24/7 news cycle.  For all the seeming tediousness, nine individuals were indicted, an additional 13 Russian nationals in one indictment and 12 Russian GRU officers in another.   So on the average a person or group every two months.  

Some people will choose not to believe the evidence, yet it seems that a case was made against 12 GRU officers for stealing Clinton emails and 13 more for false identities, troll farming and interfering with 2016 elections on the Internet.

I would agree if they were investigating just how foreign powers were involved in our election outcomes but it’s clear the main focus was on trump all based on the assertion made by the people who actually involved foreign interference and walked away barely examined which was the Clinton campaign. Trump was right it was a witch hunt the goal of which was to undermine and ultimately topple his administration. Deny it.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah youre not the only third party voter in the conversation. :tu:  See, as a third party voter what I see is a bunch of people being duped , often willingly, by the nonstop propaganda and conspiracy mongering from the right which is built wholly on lies . 

Not completely. See above 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
19 hours ago, RAyMO said:

Is the problem that the political model you follow rewards or engenders division and obstruction rather than compromise. Hasn't it been effectively set up to, or operated such as to, pit one party against the other.

A bill needs a majority of votes to pass.  That is what engenders the two-sided system.  That is the model that the US is set up to operate under.  The Senate's super-majority of 60 votes is not required by the Constitution.  There is good reason to abolish it.  Same goes for fillibusters.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
15 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I would agree if they were investigating just how foreign powers were involved in our election outcomes but it’s clear the main focus was on trump all based on the assertion made by the people who actually involved foreign interference and walked away barely examined which was the Clinton campaign. Trump was right it was a witch hunt the goal of which was to undermine and ultimately topple his administration. Deny it.

Yeah thats lunacy. You can only arrive at that conclusion if you ignore the overall picture. We have a man known to have financial ties to Russia lying to the public about his business interests in Russia, who has been rumored to have mob ties in Russia for decades, who openly asked Russia to investigate something and whether he was joking or not we have concrete proof that they did within hours. Who then went on to give Russia classified info while claiming that firing the man investigating the whole thing took great pressure off of him. This is all just as the whole thing was in its infancy. Meaning we're not even talking about the obstruction of the investigation, or his performance in Helsinki where he sided with Putin over our own government,  which in addition to slowing things down made the need to investigate the individual all the more pressing.

And of course this is all cast in the light of that nation, whom that candidate had a bunch of ties to, actively working to get that candidate elected. 

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
7 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

7800 per person per year...

So 650 a month ?

I pay 187 a month for my insurance. I don't see how I win here.

Even if I had a family I would be paying 250 a month.

Obivously that's not counting co pays and such. But I have trouble seeing it add up to a benefit to me.

 

Just guessing here:  your health insurance doesn't cover much and you are relatively young.  Your expenses will go up as you get older, as you need more-extensive coverage and as life deals you some harsh blows.  I'm also guessing that your employer may be picking up a sizable portion of your insurance premiums.

Add up ALL your health care expenses from last year and see where you stand (Ask your insurance company - they'll send you the list.).

Admittedly, my expenses may be a little higher than average because I am paying health-care costs for a permanently-disabled child and will be as long as we both live (or until a decent health-care system gets put in place).  Also, I am 71 and my wife is 70 (not the cheapest health-care category).

Doug

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
22 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Just guessing here:  your health insurance doesn't cover much and you are relatively young.  Your expenses will go up as you get older, as you need more-extensive coverage and as life deals you some harsh blows.  I'm also guessing that your employer may be picking up a sizable portion of your insurance premiums.

Add up ALL your health care expenses from last year and see where you stand (Ask your insurance company - they'll send you the list.).

Admittedly, my expenses may be a little higher than average because I am paying health-care costs for a permanently-disabled child and will be as long as we both live (or until a decent health-care system gets put in place).  Also, I am 71 and my wife is 70 (not the cheapest health-care category).

Doug

That’s too bad Doug, sorry to hear of those circumstances. I’m guessing you and your child are already receiving Medicaid and Medicare?  Do they seem adequate or fair? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Yeah thats lunacy. You can only arrive at that conclusion if you ignore the overall picture. We have a man known to have financial ties to Russia lying to the public about his business interests in Russia, who has been rumored to have mob ties in Russia for decades, who openly asked Russia to investigate something and whether he was joking or not we have concrete proof that they did within hours. Who then went on to give Russia classified info while claiming that firing the man investigating the whole thing took great pressure off of him. This is all just as the whole thing was in its infancy. Meaning we're not even talking about the obstruction of the investigation, or his performance in Helsinki where he sided with Putin over our own government,  which in addition to slowing things down made the need to investigate the individual all the more pressing.

And of course this is all cast in the light of that nation, whom that candidate had a bunch of ties to, actively working to get that candidate elected. 

 

When you put it like that, it IS extremely suspicious. 

I know... why not appoint a special prosecutor to undertake a root-and-branch investigation of the whole Russia thing ? 

We could call it.. dunno... the Llemeur Enquiry ? 

Oh.. wait...... 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.