Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Breaking News: Some Partisans See Speaker Ryan "Ineffective" More

Breaking News: Some Partisans See Speaker Ryan "Ineffective"

Comments Filter:

  • Most of the world sees Trump as ineffective ... must be the small hands thing. Amazing that with a majority in both houses and control of the presidency, he's STILL blaming democrats.

    May the next 46 months be as destructive to neocons and alt-rights and tea-partiers and white supremacists as the first two have been. He really IS going to drain the swamp - just not the swamp his supporters thought he was going to drain.

    • I'm not sure that the world can survive another 46 months of President Drumpf. His term needs to end much sooner than that.
      • How much real harm has he done so far? The courts cock-blocked his muslim travel bans. His attempt to undo the ACA has divided the republican party. The people who want him gone the most are Republicans, because they realize he's killing them.

        • The people who want him gone the most are Republicans

          They'll never admit to that if it is the case. While they won't admit how much they have changed since his days, they still hold Saint Ronnie's 11th amendment as sacred and won't impeach Drumpt over anything. The only way they'll cut his administration short is if he has a medical emergency that renders him physically unfit (we already know he is mentally unfit) for the job.

          because they realize he's killing them.

          Killing them? More like killing for them. His mantra of "there is no such thing as bad press" has permeated the entire organizati

          • Did you ever think you'd see Texas nuking their own bathroom bill? And yet, that s what's happening [reuters.com]. (Some) republicans are waking up to the fact that their bubble world is imploding - fast.
            • If they could figure out a way to make it work without spending any money they'd be right back to it. It's the money, stupid. Turns out hatred costs money.
              • Of course it's the money. The majority of the country are for trans rights, and they don't want a repeat of the boycotts of north carolina, so they have to do what the majority want. And it's going to get worse for the religious bigots because religion is dying.

                • The majority of the country are for trans rights

                  I'm not sure where the majority stands on this, to be honest. I think a more accurate statement might be that the majority of the country opposes wasting time and money on oppressing trans people, and sees oppressing them to be a pointless and stupid thing to do. I'm not sure if that is always 100% the same thing as being in favor of trans rights.

                  As far as I'm concerned, the world that existed before the bathroom bills started showing up reflects how most people feel. If a person who looks like a woma

                  • The majority are in favor of trans rights [reuters.com].

                    Fifty-three percent of the Americans surveyed oppose laws requiring transgender people to use bathrooms that correspond to their sex at birth, according to the national poll by the Public Religion Research Institute.

                    The survey showed that 39 percent of respondents favored such laws, and almost one in 10 of the 2,031 adults surveyed in February by telephone had no opinion.

                    So less than 40% are for bathroom bills restricting trans people to the bathroom on their birth certificate. And then when you show them steroid-pumped-up trans men with beards and ask if these dudes should be forced to use the women's bathroom, it quickly becomes "Are you fucking crazy? They're men."

                    In the end, it's only the extremist religious bigots that are a problem. So whether they're christian, muslim, jewish, whatever - as long as they understand the princ

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

          He's cut funding for the State Department, making the entire world less safe. He's cut the EPA budget to the bone, and I remember rolling up the windows in 95F degree heat when driving past Monsanto because the air burned your lungs. I remember rivers catching fire. I remember leaded gasoline and paint.

          Trump is destroying the US.

          • He's only able to do that with the cooperation of others. There's plenty of blame to go around - starting with the hicks who voted for him just because he was a reality tv star, not realizing that those shows are scripted, like professional wrestling.
            • I'm sure you're aware that more people voted for Hillary than voted for Donald. However at the end of the day the democrats are as much to blame for Donald's presidency as are the republicans. Putting anyone with the last name Clinton on the ticket - even George Clinton - is a guaranteed way to bring more republicans to vote as there are few things a mainstream republican finds more unpalatable than another president named Clinton.

              And the fact that Hillary won the democratic nomination reflects just o
              • The single person with the most responsibility for creating President Trumputin is Clinton. From the way the Democrats reacted (butt-hurt clinton crybabies) they will continue to refuse to accept their share of blame. And that senile old army fart "General Stupidity" needs to take a large share of the blame. How people who are dependent on medicare and other programs vote to eliminate it because it goes under a different name in their state ... and the republican state politicians won't point that out beca
                • This was an election between a democrat who could have been beaten by any random republican and a republican who could have been beaten by any random democrat (or ficus tree). Certainly much of the blame for that belongs to Hillary herself. Though what at this point could she have possibly done to make herself into less of a dog-whistle for GOP anger response? The GOP hates her because of her husband more than anything. But if she had divorced him then she would be too liberal / progressive / feminine /
                • The single person with the most responsibility for creating President Trumputin is Clinton.

                  You have a shaky grasp of how democracies work, but don't let that get in the way of a good rage on!

                  Also, if we're going to use that kind of bizarre logic for our cause and effect, then Obama's really the one to blame, since making fun of Trump at the 2011 WHCD was what cemented his desire to run in the first place.
                  • If the DNC hadn't, with Clinton's help, stolen the nomination from Sanders, there would be no President Trump. That's how "democracy" worked the last election.
                    • If the DNC hadn't, with Clinton's help, stolen the nomination from Sanders

                      Yawn. Yeah, the Clinton camp got what, 2 million more votes than Bernie, who, it should be noted, isn't even a Democrat. Totes stolen!

                      there would be no President Trump.

                      Ahhh, the ol' 'Bernie could've beaten Trump!' canard. Literally only possible to imagine if you haven't been paying to conservative rhetoric for the last 70 years.

                      Jesus, next you'll tell me you're an anti-vaxxer...
                    • You're both right and you're both wrong.

                      Yes, Hillary won the nomination fair and square. She pulled in more votes than Sanders, which is what she needed to do. Even if the super delegates had not existed and it was strictly by popular vote across the states, she still would have won the nomination by that alone.

                      I believe she really believed she could win the presidency. I don't believe she had much of a chance against any republican as she on her own brought out huge numbers of republicans who wan
                    • So could any number of other democrats (or non-republicans) you could think of who do not have the last name of Clinton.

                      No. You need a certain amount of name recognition to get anywhere on the national political stage in the US. Pop quiz: Can you name the other Democratic candidates last year not named Sanders or Clinton without looking them up?

                      Second, one of the things that did Hillary in was poor perception due to 25 years of right-wing smearing. You think that hose wouldn't get redirected ont

                    • So could any number of other democrats (or non-republicans) you could think of who do not have the last name of Clinton.

                      No. You need a certain amount of name recognition to get anywhere on the national political stage

                      That's only true when the person you are running against someone who has at least marginal approval from the American public. What we saw here was people showing up primarily to vote against the person they thought was worse. Ask a republican why they voted Trump and a significant portion of them will tell you they did it because they didn't want another president Clinton. Ask a democrat why they voted Clinton and many of them will tell you they were afraid of a president Trump. That's without even goi

                    • But can you point to something that would show that Sanders would not have taken action against Assad?

                      Ah, the old Bush/Gore argument, in reverse. I gotta love how both sides exchange the same arguments word for word depending on who is in the hot seat. You all define the concept of role reversal.

                    • You think that hose wouldn't get redirected onto Sanders the minute he gets the nomination?

                      Yeah, that's too bad it never happened. I would have liked to see just how "clean" Sanders is.

      • Also, the pendulum is swinging even in the deep red south. Texas republicans are purposefully going to let a proposed bathroom bill die [reuters.com] on the order paper because they know it will cost billions if they pass it.

    • Amazing that with a majority in both houses and control of the presidency, he's STILL blaming democrats.

      Democrats played the same blame game against the republicans when they had the power in 2009-2010.

      This little episode only further confirms the similarities between the two factions. So unfortunate they continue to win elections despite all this "resistance".

      • There's one difference (not that there's much difference between the two parties at this point - the foreign wars continued, domestic spying was extended, nobody on wall street went to jail except Bernie Madoff - and his mistake was stealing from rich people instead of average joes) - the dems actually passed a health care act.

        They're both pretty much alike. However, Trumplestiltskin is "draining the swamp" - the republican swamp. Maybe what emerges will actually realize that they need the support of the a

        • the foreign wars continued, domestic spying was extended, nobody on wall street went to jail except Bernie Madoff

          Yawn. This is what the American people want. Blaming some sort of non-existent conspiracy when Yanks are scared, moronic little children seems like an awful lot of work wasted.
          • I agree 100%. Never said it was a conspiracy. Just incredibly st00pid people who are acting like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving :-) Robert Heinlein had it all worked out in 1940 when he wrote about Nehemiah Scudder.

          • This is what the American people want.

            Yes, we know that. Why do you keep on bringing up this 'conspiracy' bullshit?

      • Democrats played the same blame game against the republicans when they had the power in 2009-2010.

        Actually, no. The Democrats were too cowardly to actually use the power granted to them by the voting public. They were so used to being beaten up by the GOP (as they had been for around a decade at that point) that they had no notion of how to use power when they had it. They were just as afraid of being called "Un-American" in congress as they were before.

        • OH brother! How much longer are you going to continue clinging to that little soap opera of yours?

          • Even for you that is a strange way to describe history. I'd ask you to provide some facts to support your assertion but we both know where that will go.

            • I see... And what exactly is your version of 'history' based on, outside the tabloid lapdog press?

              • I can't force you to read. Hell you aren't even willing to read the drivel you spew out in some of the discussions here. I will point out that the GOP pretty well took control of the meaning of "Un-American" and applied it to everything they didn't like starting on Sept 12 2001 and has not relinquished it since. The democrats sheepishly surrendered to those accusations very nearly every time they came up.

                The democrats have been unwilling to walk away from this abusive relationship, which is why the AC

                • Quite an imagination you got there.

                  • You are the one who imagines a democratic party with a collective spine to stand up against the repeated abuse from the GOP, and you claim I have "quite an imagination". There seems to be no limit to the curiosities of your world. I will say though when you make the claim of the democrats being willing to stand for something, I do find myself wishing I lived in that world instead of the one inhabited by the rest of us.

                    • I do find myself wishing I lived in that world instead of the one inhabited by the rest of us.

                      Try turning off the TV

                    • Try turning off the TV

                      I've tried that, but oddly enough it's hard to turn off something that isn't already on. I hit the power button and the damned thing turns back on.

                    • You do indeed live in a strange world

                    • Please tell me then, what happens in your world when someone pushes the power button on a TV that is turned off? Or do you have a button other than the power button to use to turn off a TV that is on? Inquiring minds want to know...
                • I will point out that the GOP pretty well took control of the meaning of "Un-American" and applied it to everything they didn't like starting on Sept 12 2001

                  No no no. American conservatives have been calling American liberals all kinds of traitorous names since the late 40s. This has been going on the entire modern era.

                  The democrats wrote it to make the Heritage Foundation happy

                  Also incorrect. As I've pointed out numerous times, health care reform was a major topic of discussion during both

                  • I will point out that the GOP pretty well took control of the meaning of "Un-American" and applied it to everything they didn't like starting on Sept 12 2001

                    No no no. American conservatives have been calling American liberals all kinds of traitorous names since the late 40s. This has been going on the entire modern era.

                    I didn't say the name calling itself was a new problem, rather that the democratic response to it was. Once 2001 came through it was no longer fashionable for democrats to have any response other than "we're awful, please abuse us more master!" to the GOP verbal bullying. They were only allowed to be cowards from that point onward, even when they had "power".

                    The democrats wrote it to make the Heritage Foundation happy

                    Also incorrect. As I've pointed out numerous times, health care reform was a major topic of discussion during both of W's terms,

                    You're memory is short, then. It was a topic of discussion when Clinton was president as well. That doesn't change the fact that what was passed

                    • rather that the democratic response to it was

                      Yeah, HUAC sure was contentious at the time...

                      They were only allowed to be cowards from that point onward, even when they had "power".

                      I used to fall for that analogy, but really it's the difference between a party that believes that democratic governments are a good thing vs. a party that thinks the private sector ought to do everything but defense. But sure, they're cowards.

                      That doesn't change the fact that what was passed in 2009 was in no smal

                    • the difference between a party that believes that democratic governments are a good thing vs. a party that thinks the private sector ought to do everything but defense

                      I wish there was an example of the former in this country. The ACA was the largest government handout to industry in possibly the history of government. The dems have given comfy speeches from time to time about restricting the power and influence of the private sector but then when the time comes to actually write and vote on bills their actions are the opposite of that.

                      That doesn't change the fact that what was passed in 2009 was in no small part influenced by the Heritage Foundation and their own requirement for an individual mandate.

                      That's not what we're arguing here.

                      Are you pretending that the democrats actually campaigned in 2008 on the actions that went into the ACA? What went into that bill was

                    • The ACA was the largest government handout to industry in possibly the history of government.

                      That's a a very narrow view. Guess you're middle-class, huh? [vox.com]

                      The GOP would have happily voted in favor of it if only the white house were occupied by a republican; they opposed it because they didn't want a democrat to get credit for health care reform.

                      Events from the last 2 weeks would seem to undercut that argument quite a bit.

                      but the bill did largely the opposite of that.

                      There are, at minimum,

                    • The ACA was the largest government handout to industry in possibly the history of government.

                      That's a a very narrow view. Guess you're middle-class, huh?

                      Can you name any government program that involved a transfer of more power and private money to any private industry? No, of course you cannot. The government just essentially gave the health insurance industry license to print money.

                      The GOP would have happily voted in favor of it if only the white house were occupied by a republican; they opposed it because they didn't want a democrat to get credit for health care reform.

                      Events from the last 2 weeks would seem to undercut that argument quite a bit.

                      I suspect you meant to say "thoroughly support that argument". Can you find the profound differences between the ACA and the Ryan proposal that just fell? No, because it is still largely the same. Just because the mandate is gone doesn't mean the industry will be making

                    • Can you name any government program that involved a transfer of more power and private money to any private industry?

                      One more time, not what I'm arguing. What I said is that it can be two things.

                      Can you find the profound differences between the ACA and the Ryan proposal that just fell?

                      Sure, let me google that for you. [google.com] But my favourite is the CBO report:

                      The Congressional Budget Office on Monday projected that the House leadershipâ(TM)s American Health Care Act would result in 24 million

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Close