U.S. Politics

[Fenwyr]

Lol I get that I'm in Lib City, but it's not hard to defend their actions when Democratic leaders have openly defied Presidential foreign policy a number of times.  I'm not saying I agree with what they did but anyone really outraged by this honestly needs a history lesson.

OK, I'll bite.  Please elaborate.

Puck I'm not a fan of Cruz as his antics with trying to circumvent SCOTUS via a constitutional amendment re:gay marriage was a freaking joke (kind of like when the left tried to go around the Hobby Lobby ruling), but  I'd vote for him in a national election ahead of Hills a million times over.

Never mind my previous request.

[Badger]

I can't imagine voting for anyone I'm not a fan of.

[Tommy]

OK, I'll bite.  Please elaborate.

Never mind my previous request.

Were the bush years a complete blur to you?

[Fenwyr]

Were the bush years a complete blur to you?

Clear as a bell.  I don't recall Dem senators sending letters to the Taliban, directly opposing the President, though.  Also don't recall them inviting foreign leaders to speak before a joint session of congress without the presidents approval.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

Lol I get that I'm in Lib City, but it's not hard to defend their actions when Democratic leaders have openly defied Presidential foreign policy a number of times.  I'm not saying I agree with what they did but anyone really outraged by this honestly needs a history lesson.

Puck I'm not a fan of Cruz as his antics with trying to circumvent SCOTUS via a constitutional amendment re:gay marriage was a freaking joke (kind of like when the left tried to go around the Hobby Lobby ruling), but  I'd vote for him in a national election ahead of Hills a million times over.

I don't think you read that comment properly.  Try again.

When you respond to a comment expressing a wish for an end to these partisan politics, more partisan politics generally don't form a convincing counterargument.  I'm not a Democrat.  I'm also not a Republican.  I don't care who called who what.  That's why I called them ALL overgrown children.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

As for it being easy to defend their actions, I also don't find "Well, he started it!" to be an appropriate response for elected officials.  It sure does work for the angry masses of party line idiots, though.

[NDMick]

Were the bush years a complete blur to you?

Enough moonshine and cocaine, and hell yes it's all a blur.

[mj2sexay]

As for it being easy to defend their actions, I also don't find "Well, he started it!" to be an appropriate response for elected officials.  It sure does work for the angry masses of party line idiots, though.

Except my argument isn't one of "well he started it." Showing historical actions isn't really a "well he started it" argument, its just merely stating a fact that this action is something that's been undertaken by politicians throughout history. That doesn't make it right. It also doesn't make it this unprecedented act of treason that some would like you to believe it is.
Besides, if you detest that level of arguing, I have no idea how you made it through the 2012 election campaign when everything was still Bush's fault four years later.

I can't imagine voting for anyone I'm not a fan of.

Fair enough, but I'm willing to take almost anyone over the "ready for Hillary" brigade that's about to switch their accusations from racism to sexism the minute people want to point out every obvious flaw that's inherent in their chosen savior.

Clear as a bell.  I don't recall Dem senators sending letters to the Taliban, directly opposing the President, though.  Also don't recall them inviting foreign leaders to speak before a joint session of congress without the presidents approval.

You're right, they didn't send letters, the current clown we have as a Secretary of State only met with Managua to meet with Ortega personally, directly contradicting and undermining Reagan's stated position to back the Contras. As for under Bush, one of his foreign policy efforts was to isolate Syria.

This was the level of deference shown by Congressional Dems towards that Presidential goal:


So again, while I'm in fundamental agreement that the letter was in poor taste, when I hear the left drop the "Treason" word, I'm sorry but I have to laugh at the hypocrisy.

[Tommy]

Hey you're not fitting the narrative that Parisian politics was invented after Obama got elected!

[Miamipuck]

Well I might bag on Cruz being a freaking idiot but I won't pretend to say that this two party system isn't full of jackasses on both sides. By full like 95 percent each party.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

Hey you're not fitting the narrative that Parisian politics was invented after Obama got elected!

I don't know a single person who believes that.  That in itself is part of the narrative.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

Except my argument isn't one of "well he started it." Showing historical actions isn't really a "well he started it" argument, its just merely stating a fact that this action is something that's been undertaken by politicians throughout history. That doesn't make it right. It also doesn't make it this unprecedented act of treason that some would like you to believe it is.
Besides, if you detest that level of arguing, I have no idea how you made it through the 2012 election campaign when everything was still Bush's fault four years later.

No.  There's a difference between accepting that it's an unfortunate part of politics in this country and stating that it's "not hard to defend it" because the other side did it.  That's absolutely a "Well he started it" argument.  You didn't even show the actions, you merely alluded to them.  We can go all the way back to Adams to find examples of Congress and the president butting heads on foreign policy to varying extent, but you didn't actually mention a single instance.  Either way, if it's "not right", why would you find it so easy to defend?  Acceptance is a very different matter.

I made it through the 2012 election by stumping for Gary Johnson.  Like I said, I'm looking for someone to address the current state of politics.  3rd party candidates have long had an impact on the two major parties, just not in recent years.  The system is due for a shakeup at a level we haven't seen for nearly 100 years.

And I don't believe politics are business as usual these days.  The tone remains the same, but the tenor has changed.  Whatever chaotic elegance once existed is gone.  Defiant ignorance is embraced in a way I'm not sure we've seen since 1832 if ever.  Given the broad and unprecedented access to information we have, it's particularly concerning.

[NDMick]

Hey you're not fitting the narrative that Parisian politics was invented after Obama got elected!

Did you mean partisan? Either way it's a funny joke. But if you meant partisan and wrote Parisian is makes it 1000% funnier.

[Ignatius J Reilly]

Did you mean partisan? Either way it's a funny joke. But if you meant partisan and wrote Parisian is makes it 1000% funnier.

I figured he somehow got autocorrected.  He uses Parisian a lot when describing his tastes in men.

[Fenwyr]

Except my argument isn't one of "well he started it." Showing historical actions isn't really a "well he started it" argument, its just merely stating a fact that this action is something that's been undertaken by politicians throughout history. That doesn't make it right. It also doesn't make it this unprecedented act of treason that some would like you to believe it is.
Besides, if you detest that level of arguing, I have no idea how you made it through the 2012 election campaign when everything was still Bush's fault four years later.

Fair enough, but I'm willing to take almost anyone over the "ready for Hillary" brigade that's about to switch their accusations from racism to sexism the minute people want to point out every obvious flaw that's inherent in their chosen savior.

You're right, they didn't send letters, the current clown we have as a Secretary of State only met with Managua to meet with Ortega personally, directly contradicting and undermining Reagan's stated position to back the Contras. As for under Bush, one of his foreign policy efforts was to isolate Syria.

This was the level of deference shown by Congressional Dems towards that Presidential goal:


So again, while I'm in fundamental agreement that the letter was in poor taste, when I hear the left drop the "Treason" word, I'm sorry but I have to laugh at the hypocrisy.

OK, a failed foreign policy from the 80's that should have resulted in the president's impeachment, and democrats not agreeing with most of Bush's policies.  You have to be kidding me about the former, as it has no bearing on discussion of recent history.  The latter is how dissension is supposed to work.  In neither case was the opposition overstepping their bounds.

Either way the presidents involved were on the wrong side of public sentiment, not that it means anything.

Sidestepping a sitting president on foreign policy goes against every rule that exists.  They can debate all they want on the floor of congress, but what they did in both the cases I mentioned were at the very least 'borderline' treasonous actions.