Will The Democrats Extreme Anti Trump Position Come Back And Bite Them On The Ass?

[cadaverdog]

Uh.... the right wing dickbags declared themselves to be obstructionists literally the night of Obama's inauguration...... Newt Gingrich even openly BRAGS about attending such a meeting...

The entire Democratic Party has sworn to oppose anything Trump does. Obviously the Republican party has already figured out by taking a different approach to President elect Trump He'll be more apt to play ball with them. Together they can pass whatever legislation they want to pass with no help at all from the other side. You'd think the opposition would at least attempt to play nice if they want to pass any legislation but they won't. Instead of being the United States we're the divided states now. I only worry about the way this country is heading for the sake of my brother's children, stepchildren and grandchildren. If shit hit the fan tomorrow I would only last until my meds ran out. I wouldn't suffer long. Trying to survive in a post apocalyptic world isn't an option for me. Do you like the direction we're headed in now? I don't.

[FORD]

The entire Democratic Party has sworn to oppose anything Trump does.

Actually, that's not true. Bernie Sanders has said that if Trump actually advocates policies which he campaigned on, such as opposing SHAFTA type "trade" deals, and building infrastructure, then he would work with him.

Unfortunately the "infrastructure" talk that has come from Camp Cheeto since the election has been nothing but a bunch of tax cuts for corporations which would result in privatized toll roads & bridges and do nothing beneficial for the people or the economy. And Bernie definitely noticed, and called him out on it. So it's up to the Orange man to live up to his own campaign promises, if he wants cooperation.

[cadaverdog]

Actually, that's not true. Bernie Sanders has said that if Trump actually advocates policies which he campaigned on, such as opposing SHAFTA type "trade" deals, and building infrastructure, then he would work with him.

One guy. The same guy who got back stabbed by his own party. If he hadn't we wouldn't be having this discussion. Bernie would be the next president. He was likable enough and didn't have the blood stained hands Hillary had on her.

[Terry]

C'mon Terry. I know you're not that dense.
Let's pretend you supported one of the other Republicans for whatever reason so you vote for him and he wins like Trump did. He wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote. The opposition demands recounts but that doesn't change the results so they say the electoral college system should be changed retroactively. That doesn't work out so they try something else but that fails too. Now they know they're stuck with this person who they despise so they vow to oppose everything he proposes. Traditionally the losing party at least pretends to accept defeat gracefully but not this time. You know your candidate wouldn't have been your first choice if you had more to pick from but you didn't. The people who support the opposition start calling you a racist, a sexist, a homophobe and a deplorable person. At this point here you'd be pretty pissed off at the opposition just like I am. Would you want some type of revenge? Would you want your party to be just as obstructionist as the Dems are being now?

Let's not pretend.

Hillary Clinton lost the election. There is no evidence of actual ballot fraud, so in terms of claiming the election was stolen from Clinton at the voting booth that issue (which I'm not claiming you have made) is a non-starter: under our system of elections, she lost. All the talk about the fairness of the Electoral College and if it should be replaced is moot as to the legitimacy of Donald Trump's victory. Donald Trump was elected. There is nothing inherently wrong with either party asking for recounts in a close election. The only reason a victor in a close election shuns recounts is because said victor would be worried the recounts would change the initial result. The recounts (in as far as they went) this time around didn't change the result, and I accept that.

The Democratic Party opposes the bulk of what Donald Trump ran on. The Republican Party opposed the bulk of what Barack Obama ran on in 2008 and 2012. There wasn't even the slightest pretense of co-operation with President Obama by the vast majority Republicans at the national level. In point of fact, well into Obama's first term some of the fringe elements of the Republican Party were fixated on falsely claiming Obama wasn't even qualified by birth to hold the office, the spearhead of that Birther Movement now about to be sworn into that same office. So much for your thesis that by opposing Trump Democrats are in some way acting radically different from the Republican Party when the shoe was on the other foot.

I liked what Bernie Sanders had to say. In the end, I would have enthusiastically voted for him had he been the nominee, but I (rightly or wrongly) assumed Sanders wasn't as electable as Hillary Clinton. Thus your claims of knowing that Hillary Clinton wouldn't have been my first choice are incorrect. You're just plain wrong. She proved to be an ineffective candidate in the end. It's hard to argue otherwise considering that she lost and who she lost to. She may well have never - most of the polling in the run-up to the election to one side - been ahead at any time in the areas of the nation where it ended up counting. My own mindset was that in terms of electability Lincoln Chafee, Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb didn't have a realistic chance of even getting the nomination. Sanders may well have, and even though I really liked what he had to say about income inequality to me the idea of a Brooklyn-born Jewish person who was a self-avowed socialist running to the far left wouldn't prove palatable to a majority of American voters, for a myriad of reasons (none of which would have inhibited me from voting for him). So my own personal calculation was that Hillary Clinton stood the best chance out of those who stepped forward to run for the nomination. I can't say for certain now if my calculation was correct, but it is the one I made. For you to claim otherwise is as presumptive as it is incorrect.

As to Trump supporters being defined by those who opposed Trump deplorable, it may perhaps be unfair to paint all those who voted for Trump with the same brush in terms of the various rationales they had in casting a vote for him. Perhaps some voted for him strictly as an anti-Hillary vote despite not particularly liking him ("I hate Trump, but I hate Hillary worse than Trump"). Perhaps for some it was just a case of Republicans coming home when Election Day approached ("I hate Trump, but I am a Republican and will vote for him strictly on ideological terms"). When I think of what Trump said and did on the campaign trail, however, it's 'in for a penny, in for a pound': if Trump voters don't like being called xenophobic misogynists, maybe they should have considered that before they voted for him, because his character was out front for all to see well in advance of Election Day.

Finally, I don't recall hearing too many Republicans in the wake of 2008 and 2012 protesting the Republicans in the Legislative Branch who obstructed Obama at every turn as 'unpatriotic' or claiming that the country would fail unless their fellow Republicans stopped being obstructionist. I'm assuming mostly because Republican voters might have thought it incumbent that their representatives opposed a President whose ideology they felt was harmful, and doing so in their rationale was a form of patriotism. As it turns out, the country didn't fail despite the Republican obstructionism. Thus, the notion that the reverse should now take hold since the Democrats are in the minority seems fallacious at best, and disingenuous at worst.

[FORD]

I don't think any of them know what the meaning of sensible is.

Captain??

[Nickdfresh]

The entire Democratic Party has sworn to oppose anything Trump does. Obviously the Republican party has already figured out by taking a different approach to President elect Trump He'll be more apt to play ball with them....

Where the fuck have you been the last EIGHT years? The GOP stated basically that Obama would push for a wage increase for them and that they'd oppose it! They'd oppose whatever he did. So if Republican's play with Drumpf's balls they'll get what they want?

You know what they really want? Most probably want Trump to step down and go away and for Pence to take over...

[FORD]

I'm convinced that the fundaMENTAList wackjobs - Pat Robertson, Jim "buckets" Bakker, et al. - were only pushing for Cheeto's election precisely because they KNEW his orange ass would be thrown out of office (or he would go full Palin and quit) and then they get the Mike Pence theocracy. Best news they had since Lying 7 Mountains Ted dropped out of the primaries.

[cadaverdog]

Let's not pretend.

Obviously you fail to understand my question was hypothetical. Maybe I could have worded it better. Your answers are excuses why, not an answer to the question.
If any candidate from either party so angered the other party they decided to obstruct that person regardless of how it affects their constituents eventually their constituents are gonna get pissed off. This could mean opposing legislation they like or having legislation they like denied. I this case the opposition controls both houses and the presidency. Together they can do pretty much whatever they want. Look at what they've already done. Obamacare is toast. This might come back and bite them on the ass as well.

[cadaverdog]

Where the fuck have you been the last EIGHT years? The GOP stated basically that Obama would push for a wage increase for them and that they'd oppose it! They'd oppose whatever he did. So if Republican's play with Drumpf's balls they'll get what they want?

That's not an answer, it's an excuse. This time the Republicans are in charge. And yes, if the Republicans fiddle with Trump's balls, kiss his ass, suck his dick or just pretend they support him they'll get whatever they want.

[Terry]

Obviously you fail to understand my question was hypothetical. Maybe I could have worded it better. Your answers are excuses why, not an answer to the question.
If any candidate from either party so angered the other party they decided to obstruct that person regardless of how it affects their constituents eventually their constituents are gonna get pissed off. This could mean opposing legislation they like or having legislation they like denied. I this case the opposition controls both houses and the presidency. Together they can do pretty much whatever they want. Look at what they've already done. Obamacare is toast. This might come back and bite them on the ass as well.

I "obviously" understood your question was hypothetical. I chose to not to engage in hypothesis and restrict my own comments to what has actually taken place, in terms of naming names (who did what, where, when and why).

I do understand you are angered with those who opposed the election of Donald Trump and the legislative goals of the Republican Party, certainly in the sense that you feel it is on their part obstruction for the sake of it or as some kind of payback for what the Republican Party did when they were in the minority in 2009.

I would agree in theory that if Democrats in the Congress obstructed Donald Trump and the Republican Party merely for the sake of it, even if President Trump and the Republican majority in Congress were proposing laws that would actually benefit all Americans, that type of behavior certainly could lead to a backlash against the Democratic Party by some Democratic voters. In practice, that methodology the Republican Party used from 2009 to 2016 didn't cause a lasting backlash against this obstructionism (because Donald Trump wasn't solely elected by hardcore Trump supporters who were there from the beginning or Tea Party Republicans: a certain amount of longtime Republican voters who would identify themselves as neither hardcore supporters or Tea Party members came home in the end, held their noses and voted for Trump) by Republican voters. What reason(s) do you have to think the reverse will be true in the case of Democratic voters if the Democratic Party obstructs Trump at every turn? Keeping in mind that in the aspects of ideology, outlook, tone and intent this election was a stark choice: it wasn't 2004 all over again where in practical policy terms there was precious little daylight between the candidates.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act/"Obamacare" and replacing it with something that works better for ALL Americans would be something I'd imagine a majority of Democratic voters WOULD want to happen, even if Trump and the Republican Party proposed it. I certainly would be all for it. The problem with that is outside of some half-realized utterances by Candidate Trump on the campaign trail that health care would basically be totally re-privatized and essentially left to insurance companies to implement, with vague promises of vouchers for those who are unable to have health care benefits through their employers (if they are even lucky enough to have a job, much less a job that even provides health care), there isn't even so much as a pretense of having a viable alternative for the 20 million people who are on Obamacare. Let's hope those 20 million don't include a substantial number of Trump voters who still labor under the delusion that the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare are two different things, because when the reality of Trump's non-policy health care plan alternative to Obamacare (the details of which he hasn't yet revealed - more than telling his nominee for the Department of Health and Human Services couldn't even answer any specifics about it) trickles down to those who are chucked off the rolls, Trump might have a hard time blaming Obama/Hillary/the Democratic Party/Mexican rapists/the Lamestream Fake News Media for that one.

Your theory of a possible backlash by Democratic voters against obstructionism by the Democratic minority in Congress might have some credence if Trump, Pence, Ryan and McConnell and all of Trump's Cabinet hopefuls were more to the center than the right in terms of their beliefs and ideology. What those guys are going to implement is another massive tax cut for the rich and another massive round of austerity cuts to the budget, which none of the empirical economic data from the last 40 years suggests benefits the majority of the American citizenry: wages have not risen for the majority of the American people since the early 1980s in a way that has kept pace with inflation, and how many Trump supporters are going to care if the federal budget is balanced should they go broke in the process while the top tier of earners amass more income?

Now, none of this has happened, yet. Trump is an unpredictable guy, so there is always the possibility all the things I mentioned won't come to pass. However, Trump has been consistent about the changes he wants to make in terms of tax rates, and he seems content to let Pence, Ryan and McConnell run the show on the Hill (and there is no doubt as to what those guys want to happen), and his picks for various Cabinet and agency posts all have a professed belief that deregulation on a massive scale will be a good thing. I'm sure it will be a good thing...for them. For the majority of the country, it's not looking good. More than half the country has little confidence in Donald Trump, so his chances of getting a First 100 Days honeymoon are slim to none: people are going to be watching what happens, and rightly so. That Trump equates any type of criticism with being non-supportive or unpatriotic is meaningless to me. If he wanted everybody around him to say "Yes, Sir!" to everything he proposed and expect all of his decisions to be met with nothing other than universal acceptance, he shouldn't have ran for the presidency. America isn't a corporation, certainly not Trump, Inc.

[cadaverdog]

I "obviously" understood your question was hypothetical. I chose to not to engage in hypothesis and restrict my own comments to what has actually taken place, in terms of naming names (who did what, where, when and why).

But you end up doing it anyway.

I do understand you are angered with those who opposed the election of Donald Trump and the legislative goals of the Republican Party, certainly in the sense that you feel it is on their part obstruction for the sake of it or as some kind of payback for what the Republican Party did when they were in the minority in 2009.

I'm not angered by those who opposed the election of Donald Trump. That's how a democracy works. It's what they did after they lost. Asking for a recount is one thing but the rest of it was too much IMO. I wasn't referring to any other actions during or after any other elections.

I would agree in theory that if Democrats in the Congress obstructed Donald Trump and the Republican Party merely for the sake of it, even if President Trump and the Republican majority in Congress were proposing laws that would actually benefit all Americans, that type of behavior certainly could lead to a backlash against the Democratic Party by some Democratic voters.

That was actually an answer to the question I posed. I imagine there are some Democrats that don't agree with what has transpired since the election took place as well. Democrats that accepted losing gracefully. But the backlash could come from the Republican majority and the POTUS as well.
Whatever happens now affects all of us. If Trump decides to payback the people who tried to keep him from taking office by any means necessary it's gonna fuck me as much if not worse than anyone else. I'd like to live out the rest of my life in peace. There's going to be those who say "it's all your fault because you voted for the guy" I didn't vote for the opposition to do what they did. That was their choice.

[cadaverdog]

More than half the country has little confidence in Donald Trump,

Anytime the President loses the popular vote you could assume that but it doesn't make it fact. The fact is the majority of the voters in more than half of these United States had enough confidence in the man to vote for him. I doubt that changed just because liberals in this country can't handle the fact that their candidate lost. If more of these people who have no confidence in Donald Trump actually cared enough to vote we might not be having this discussion.

[FORD]

More than half the voters didn't vote at all. That means they had no confidence in Drumpf OR Hillary. Then if you add Hillary's voters and those who voted for Jill Stein, Aleppo Johnson, and the other more obscure candidates - like the wackjob with the boot on his head, you end up with about 80% of the voters who did not choose Trump.

So 20%, that's roughly the same number who still "approved" of Chimp & Cheney even at the end of their disastrous 8 years. That's your hardcore, right wing FAUX Noize/Mush Limpdick listening brainwashed "base" that simply will never vote for any candidate who is not a Republican.

And by this point, some of them are even having second thoughts about Herr Cheeto.

[cadaverdog]

More than half the voters didn't vote at all. That means they had no confidence in Drumpf OR Hillary. Then if you add Hillary's voters and those who voted for Jill Stein, Aleppo Johnson, and the other more obscure candidates - like the wackjob with the boot on his head, you end up with about 80% of the voters who did not choose Trump.

Using that logic Hillary didn't fare so well either. She got less that half of the popular vote. (approx 48%) If more than half of the registered voters in the United States didn't bother to vote she got less than 25% herself. 75% of all voters thinks she sucks.

[jacksmar]

Repealing the Affordable Care Act/"Obamacare" and replacing it with something that works better for ALL Americans would be something I'd imagine a majority of Democratic voters WOULD want to happen, even if Trump and the Republican Party proposed it. I certainly would be all for it. The problem with that is outside of some half-realized utterances by Candidate Trump on the campaign trail that health care would basically be totally re-privatized and essentially left to insurance companies to implement, with vague promises of vouchers for those who are unable to have health care benefits through their employers (if they are even lucky enough to have a job, much less a job that even provides health care), there isn't even so much as a pretense of having a viable alternative for the 20 million people who are on Obamacare. Let's hope those 20 million don't include a substantial number of Trump voters who still labor under the delusion that the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare are two different things, because when the reality of Trump's non-policy health care plan alternative to Obamacare (the details of which he hasn't yet revealed - more than telling his nominee for the Department of Health and Human Services couldn't even answer any specifics about it) trickles down to those who are chucked off the rolls, Trump might have a hard time blaming Obama/Hillary/the Democratic Party/Mexican rapists/the Lamestream Fake News Media for that one.

there isn't 20 million on obamacare. 9 million self insured were chucked off their private insurance, for real.