Arguing with apologists for the ridiculous Rep. Ocasio-Cortez makes me feel like I’m going crazy. They claim that the Green New Deal isn’t the same as the bizarre, silly, rapidly removed “FAQ” posted by the Democrat’s “It Girl, with its talk about rebuilding all of our buildings, eliminating air travel, and a living wage for those who “choose not to work.” Thy say that what almost all the Democratic Presidential hopefuls say they support is just an “aspirational” goal of conquering creeping climate change within the imaginary 12 year deadline (and I do mean dead.) “What is it they are supporting?” I ask. “The Green New Deal!” they answer. “What is the Green New Deal they say they are supporting” I ask, “if it isn’t the only printed description of the goals as defined by the Democrat who coined the phrase?” “That wasn’t what they are supporting,” these climate change alarmists “explain.” “There’s nothing in the Green New Deal about eliminating cows and airplanes.” “Then what is in the Green New Deal?” I ask. “It’s aspirational,” they answer. Round and around.
I wonder how Democrats and progressives feel about the fact that their party and ideological clan has abandoned all responsibility, professionalism, principle and common sense as it sinks into some kind of collective nervous breakdown triggered by Donald Trump, Obama’s failures, Clinton’s loss, its increasingly obvious hypocrisies, and the fact that it has embraced one irrational “do something!”position after another. Surely not all of them are sharing the delusions. Surely there are alert and uncorrupted Democrats who can see what is happening to a once honorable and trustworthy American institution. Following close on the fumes of the three year failed effort to remove the President between election while poisoning the public’s trust in him, the Democratic Senators revealed the phoniness of party endorsements of Ocasio-Cortez’s juvenile delusions when none of them would go on the record and support a motion to advance the Democratic Green New Deal resolution.
There wasn’t a single “yea” vote from Democrats, not even from the 2020 wannabes whose names already appear as co-sponsors on the Senate version of the thing. (Nancy Pelosi won’t permit such a vote in the House.) The final tally was 0-57, with forty-three Democrats voting “present,” and three Blue Senators from “red states” doing the expedient thing and voting with the Republicans. There’s no way to spin this, though in their infinite belief in the stupidity of the American people, Democrats tried, with the help of its captive media, of course. The vote was a GOP gimmick, you see. Ocasio-Cortez:
“The GOP’s whole game of wasting votes in Congress to target others “on the record”, for leg they have no intent to pass, is a disgrace. Stop wasting the American peoples’ time + learn to govern. Our jobs aren’t for campaigning, & that’s exactly what these bluff-votes are for.”
The woman has been saying and tweeting that there is no time to waste, and that the nation needs to take radical, society-shaking measures to prevent doom NOW, yet somehow voting on a resolution of her own making to weigh Congress’s position on her policy demands is a waste of time. Meanwhile, her colleagues in the House have announced that their top priority isn’t substantive legislation, but continuing to pursue endless investigations in the hope of justifying impeachment.
Is the public really so stupid that such obvious corruption and dishonesty…and disrespect for those who they are supposed to represent…escape their notice? The Democrats appear to be betting on it.
Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee delivered a speech on the Senate floor using pure mockery to illustrate the Green New Deal lack of seriousness—which the subsequent vote confirmed. No, Lee shouldn’t quit his day job, but his routine had its moments. He began,
“Unlike others, I’m not immediately afraid of what the Green New Deal would do to the economy and our government. After all, this isn’t going to pass — not today, not any time soon. After reading the Green New Deal, I’m mostly afraid of not being able to get through this speech with a straight face.I rise today to consider the Green New Deal with the seriousness it deserves.”
Lee then uncovered an image of former President Ronald Reagan firing a machine gun while riding on a velociraptor that was waving an American flag. He explained,
“You’ll notice a couple of features here: the rocket launcher strapped to President Reagan’s back, and then the stirring, unmistakeable patriotism of the velociraptor holding up a tattered American flag, a symbol of all it means to be an American. Now, critics might quibble with this depiction with this climactic battle of the Cold War because, while awesome, in real life there was no climactic battle. There’s no battle with or without velociraptors. The Cold War as we all know, was won without firing a shot. But that quibble actually serves our purposes here today because this image has as much to do with overcoming Communism in the 20th century as the Green New Deal has to do with overcoming climate change in the 21st.”
Lee then argued that there is not a single serious proposal in the entire Green New Deal, focusing on the resolution’s call for a World War II-style mobilization.
“[Eliminating airplanes] might seem merely ambitious for politicians who represent the densely populated northeastern United States, but how’s it supposed to work for our fellow citizens who don’t live somewhere between Washington, D.C., and and Boston? In a future without air travel, how are we supposed to get around the vast expanses of say, Alaska? I’ll tell you how: Tauntauns!”
Lee then showed the familiar image of Luke Skywalker riding a Tauntaun in “Star Wars.”
“This is a beloved species of repto-mammals native to the ice planet of Hoth. While perhaps not as efficient in some ways, as airplanes or snow mobiles, these hairy bipedal species of space lizards offer their own unique benefits: Not only are Tauntauns carbon-neutral, but according to a to a report a long time ago and issued far far away, they may even be fully recyclable.”
The Utah Senator pointed out that no access to air travel would be especially burdensome for citizens of Hawaii, which is distant and depends on tourism. Lee suggested that Hawaiians’ best option might be the favored mode of transport used by the original comic book version of Aquaman, who, Lee helpfully reminded hos colleagues, was “a founding member of the Super Friends.” Lee showed an inspiring drawing of the Atlantis hero with his steed, saying,
“I draw your attention to the 20-foot impressive seahorse he’s riding,Under the Green New Deal, this is probably Hawaii’s best bet. Now, I’m the first to admit that a massive fleet of giant, highly trained seahorses would be cool, it would be really, really awesome, but we have to consider a few things — we have no idea about scalability, or domestic capacity in this sector.The last thing we want is to ban all airplanes only then to find out that China or Russia may have already established strategic, hippocampus programs designed to cut the United States out of the global market.”
After joking that giant seahorses smell even worse than the dreaded farting cow of the “FAQ,” Lee concluded…
“The authors of this proposal will protest that these goals are not actually part are not actually part of the Green New Deal but were merely included in supporting documents accidentally sent out by the office of the lead sponsor in the House of Representatives [that is, Ocasio-Cortez.] This only makes my point: the supporters of the Green New Deal want Americans to trust them to reorganize our entire society, our entire economy, to restructure out entire way of life, and they couldn’t even figure out how to send out the right press release. The Green New Deal is not a serious policy document because it’s not a policy document at all. It is, in fact, an aesthetic look. The resolution is not an agenda of solutions, it’s a token of elite tribal identity and endorsing it, a public act of piety for the chic and woke.”
AOC was not amused.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz Of The Day is…
Ethics Alarms 
No. It is possible to deride decorously. Ridicule is an acceptable response to the ridiculous.
I rather enjoyed it. He was much tamer than any House of Commons debate I’ve had the pleasure of watching on BBC America. Alas, he wasn’t as FUNNY as some of those debates, but what is?
No. The airheads like AOC that came up with this pipe dream richly deserved to have their fantasy mocked. President Theodore Roosevelt repeatedly mocked Wilson when out of office for his heel dragging as WW1 loomed.
I doubt she could handle the ridicule a 19th century Congressman or Senator was capable of heaping on her. Those men had the ability to speak, whatever else their faults were.
Rhetoric is a valid debate tactic, especially when your opponent does not present any logical points to be argued against. And given the recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings, I don’t think this was particularly indecorous.
Also, “founding member of the Super Friends” made me chuckle and earns two hundred internet points.
Yes, that was a high point.
Agreeing that this mockery was deserved, and far less a waste of time than a wish list for Santa Grinch to fix everything by locking up all the alt-right, the conservatives, the moderates, the septics, and the incels until they follow their wiser progressive leaders’ orders. The fact that these leaders have no idea what they’d be fighting for, let alone the cost or benefits, is irrelevant.
I STILL want to see this woman live as an Amish woman for 2-4 years and see if she can lead by example in regressing to the 19th century. Even the ‘progressive Amish’ use solar power only for crucial things like cooling milk for food safety, no tv, computer, electric heat, etc. Has she ever hooked up a horse and buggy and cleaned a stable? Has she tried to get to work in a heavy rain or snowstorm on a bicycle or lived less than five miles from all family jobs, doctors, schools, shopping? If she wants to travel more than 10 miles (an hour’s drive in a buggy) she will need to go by commissioning a taxi service which usually loops for construction workers… not a trip to the mall. And ‘everyone’ giving up cars is one of the few imaginable points, but does she have cars NOW if it is such an emergency? Or does she plan to claim Senators are special and will have the freeways to themselves- why should we maintain those roads if only a few thousand use them?
She’s imagining some utopian SF future awakening that would be bounced by any book or comic book editor. George Lucas and Len Wein are far better storytellers. She should save these proposals for when we have transporters, lightsabers, and the ability to enslave large fish for silly things.
Unfortunately, if reason, evidence, and common sense cannot get someone to slow down some impetuous bull-headed behavior, mockery is one of the few winning plays left. No one likes being made fun of, but comedy made the point in a memorable way, highlighting the folly for all to see. Since the time for ‘how dare you’ outrage seems to have passed a couple of years ago, laughter is the best medicine.
No, actually it’s the first time I have seen a conservative resort to using the other side’s tactics against them. Usually it’s the supposedly hip, cool liberals who come up with all the funny stuff because, the smartest people in the room are also always the wittiest people in the room. although sometimes one of them goes a little too far, like saying someone should s*** in Sarah Palin’s mouth. those rubes from flyover country can’t tell any kind of joke unless it disparages one of the Democrats’ pet categories, and even when it does, it’s usually lame like the joke in the movie Philadelphia about how you fake a gay orgasm (throw hot yogurt on the catcher’s back). You mark my words though, if a democratic politician had done a similar routine disparaging a republican proposal, the media would be tripping all over themselves about how brilliant it was.
Turnabout is always fair play, and especially when the initial proposal is so out-and-out ridiculous that it almost cries out to be mocked. I think this was one of the most masterful uses of satire I have ever seen by any senator at any time. it’s definitely better than that one congressman pulling up his hood after the shooting of Trayvon Martin or Maxine Waters having enough of a meltdown that they almost had to hit her with the Congressional mace.
the bottom line is that if you ask a silly question you should get a silly answer question and anyone who makes a ridiculous proposal should be mocked. the fact that some on the left are already saying that the age to run for President should be lowered so that this woman can run for president is not just dumb, it’s scary.
And once again, our clever, dishonorable member from NJ uses the Comment section to make a gratuitous display of his homophobia.
PennAgain wrote, “And once again, our clever, dishonorable member from NJ uses the Comment section to make a gratuitous display of his homophobia.”
Homophobia? What I see as much more of a problem is your faux outrage is the only thing you could muster up as a retort to Steve’s comment. Sad.
Of course, it was deserved and in many instances quite on target. I doubt that he will be on any of the talk/news shows with that scorching monologue that goes against the collective wisdom of the collective. Thin skins seem to be an infliction on the left that needs a dermatologist intervention. The deal itself reminds me of a three-year-old constructing a Lego building with the end result being a mishmash.
Apparently, they are fine with it. They elected this bunch of irrational, cognitively challenged people to represent their interests. How could they be anything other than okay with their proposals?
Are we seeing the Democrats support slip in the polls? Not really. Are the Republicans suddenly surging (yes, I know that their proposals may be equally absurd, but they are the only real alternative)? Not that I can see.
So my conclusion is, that yes, “progressives” and Democrats are at least okay, if not comfortable, with what their party is doing, nervous breakdown and all.
The no “yea” vote on the NGD in the Senate was meaningless. It was an exercise in party discipline, one that Schumer, from a political standpoint, handled admirably. He avoided getting most D’s on record in opposition of their own “aspirational” proposal and blunted the campaign impact of the vote, which was the entire purpose of the Republicans bringing it up.
A trustworthy news media would ask her what the difference is between the last ten times the Dems and “progressives” have warned us that the world is coming to an end in very few years due to “climate change” nee global warming, and this one?
Is there some super-secret data on global warming that we proles don’t get to see but our betters in the Democrat party do?
As to the vote, she’s right because shut up.
Tough one.
Probably. In all honesty, in the Senate I had envisioned in my youth and as represented in the history books I had the apparent good fortune to read, the Senate was a serious place where serious men (then men only, now women too) went to deliberate weighty matters of state.
The pictures painted in my mind were people of the most serious mien, to which satirical stories featuring comic book superheroes, sci-fi movie references and memes about a former president would not only be disrespectful, but unheard of and uncontemplated.
Apparently, I just hadn’t lived long enough. Sometimes, I wish that were still true.
So the answer, I guess, is in my Senate, yes. In today’s actual Senate, sadly, probably not.
If you could ask Charles Sumner about the historic decorum of the Senate, he might offer a different view.
Thanks, John Billingsley,
Saved me from having to look it up.
-Jut
The exception that proves the rule.
“Was Sen. Lee’s derisive satire routine an unethical breach of Senate decorum?”
No.
To properly answer the question one must understand what Senate “decorum” is.
———————————————–
Decorum
In his insistence on proper decorum, President pro tempore Foot followed the generations of Senate presiding officers who relied on Vice President Thomas Jefferson’s 1801 Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States. Reflecting centuries of contentiousness in legislative assemblies, Jefferson’s Manual warned: “No one is to disturb another in his speech by
hissing, coughing, spitting, speaking or whispering to another, nor to stand up or interrupt him, nor to pass between the Speaker and the speaking member, nor to go across the house, or walk up and down
it, or take books or papers from the table, or write there.” Earlier, Jefferson had drafted the rules of the Continental Congress, which the Senate followed closely in shaping its own rules in 1789. At least half
of those 20 rules addressed issues of order and decorum.
Traditions of proper decorum developed naturally in the early Senate, which first got down to business with only 12 members present. Even into its mid-19th-century “Golden Age,” with allowances for
frequent absences, seldom were there more than several dozen members on the floor of the intimate, theater-like Old Senate Chamber. This contrasted with the noise and chaos of the cavernous House Chamber where more than 200 spirited members competed to hear and be heard. To ensure its ability to conduct proceedings without distractions or interruptions, the Senate enhanced its sergeant at arms’ authority to carry out the presiding officer’s commands for decorum on the floor and in the galleries.
Early in the 20th century, the Senate added an important decorum-related rule. During 1902 floor proceedings, a senator openly questioned a colleague’s integrity. When that colleague stormed into the Chamber to brand the assertion “a willful, malicious, and deliberate lie,” the accusing senator
jumped from behind his desk and punched his challenger in the face. Efforts to separate the combatants sparked a brawl. After the galleries were cleared and order restored, the Senate temporarily suspended
both members from serving, censured them, and adopted stricter decorum guidelines for floor debate. Today’s Rule XIX includes those 1902 guidelines: “No Senator in debate shall directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”
Several years later, in 1914, the Senate ended two of its longstanding traditions in the interest of promoting decorum within the Chamber. It had been customary on the first day of a new session for senators to receive flowers at their desks from various admirers. (Some less popular members were suspected of sending bouquets to themselves.) When floral arrangements became so ostentatious that they blocked the aisles and obscured senators from public view, the Senate banned them from the Chamber—except in tribute following the death of an incumbent senator. In another move, owing to concerns about the respiratory problems of an elderly member, the Senate also banned smoking. (The dipping of snuff, however, continued for another half century. Two small lacquered boxes affixed to marble ledges adjacent to the presiding officer’s desk offered a continuously replenished supply
of that commonly used tobacco product, with several dozen spittoons conveniently placed throughout the Chamber. Today, these Senate relics are no longer in service, but they remain on view under protective
boxes as a reminder of a once-famed Senate tradition.)
More than two centuries ago, Vice President Aaron Burr memorably extolled the Senate Chamber as a sacred place for deliberation. In his 1805 farewell address to the Senate, he described the room—and the institution—as “a sanctuary; a citadel of law, of order, and of liberty.” In keeping with the tradition of its meeting place as a sanctuary, the Senate has turned aside requests to allow cell phones and laptop computers into the Chamber on grounds that they would interfere with its decorum.
———————————————–
RULES OF THE SENATE
DEBATE
1.(a) When a Senator desires to speak, he shall rise and address the Presiding Officer, and shall not proceed until he is recognized, and the Presiding Officer shall recognize the Senator who shall first address him. No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall first address the Presiding Officer, and no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.
1.(b) At the conclusion of the morning hour at the beginning of a new legislative day or after the unfinished business or any pending business has first been laid before the Senate on any calendar day, and until after the duration of three hours of actual session after such business is laid down except as determined to the contrary by unanimous consent or on motion without debate, all debate shall be germane and confined to the specific question then pending before the Senate.
2.No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.
3.No Senator in debate shall refer offensively to any State of the Union.
4.If any Senator, in speaking or otherwise, in the opinion of the Presiding Officer transgress the rules of the Senate the Presiding Officer shall, either on his own motion or at the request of any other Senator, call him to order; and when a Senator shall be called to order he shall take his seat, and may not proceed without leave of the Senate, which, if granted, shall be upon motion that he be allowed to proceed in order, which motion shall be determined without debate. Any Senator directed by the Presiding Officer to take his seat, and any Senator requesting the Presiding Officer to require a Senator to take his seat, may appeal from the ruling of the Chair, which appeal shall be open to debate.
5.If a Senator be called to order for words spoken in debate, upon the demand of the Senator or of any other Senator, the exceptionable words shall be taken down in writing, and read at the table for the information of the Senate.
6.Whenever confusion arises in the Chamber or the galleries, or demonstrations of approval or disapproval are indulged in by the occupants of the galleries, it shall be the duty of the Chair to enforce order on his own initiative and without any point of order being made by a Senator.
7.No Senator shall introduce to or bring to the attention of the Senate during its sessions any occupant in the galleries of the Senate. No motion to suspend this rule shall be in order, nor may the Presiding Officer entertain any request to suspend it by unanimous consent.
8.Former Presidents of the United States shall be entitled to address the Senate upon appropriate notice to the Presiding Officer who shall thereupon make the necessary arrangements.
———————————————–
Me again.
I don’t see anything specifically against mockery, you might be able to say that it could imply that mockery is inappropriate.
In my humble opinion, mockery is a fair tactic to use in debate.
🙂
Zoltar!
That is a brilliant comment. I, too, think mockery of the Green New Deal is appropriate and does not violate the rules of decorum in the Senate. In fact, it seems Senator Lee went to great lengths to focus on proposal and not impugn the character of the proposal’s authors or sponsors. He mocked the proposal directly, using cultural icons to show how ridiculous it is; indirectly, he showed how foolish it is to agree with, promote, sponsor, and vote in favor of, the proposal. The Democrats backed themselves into a corner, thanks to being outwitted by Sen. McConnell. Sorry, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, but you have proverbial egg on your face.
jvb
Thanks for the rules of the game.
Ethics cannot be applied to ideas or physical things. Ethics can only be applied to human interactions; as I understand ethics.
As near as I can tell, at no time did Lee mock or otherwise denigrate any other Senator or anyone else promoting the green new deal. If this speech is designated as mockery then it is aimed at the proposal not necessarily at a human being. Thus, deliberately using, allegorical references, rhetorical flourishes, or colorful language to amplify one’s sentiment of disapproval cannot be considered unethical.
From a NYTs editorial “People Actually Like the Green New Deal”.
What interested me is the notion of ‘liking’ and the establishment of an immediate polarity. The Good Democrats will ‘like’ it because, even if it is utterly vague and totally impracticable, it corresponds to something they ‘like’. And since they ‘like not’ the Republican opposition, they are duty-bound to ‘like’ the GND even if it is irrational and absurd.
It seems to me another manifestation of political and social warfare that does not really seem to depend on any sound assertion or lack of sound assertion. It is like when very young children fight and bicker. It is not really ‘the thing’ bickered over, but the personalities of the two opponents.
The larger part of the Opposition to Trump seems based in the emotions and in emotionalism. I do though think that American Progressives have some sound reasonings when they oppose Trump for ‘what he represents’ and some of the groups that respond to Trump. So, their opposition is not completely irrational.
My view will not be popular among any American faction. I say that no one knows how to look at and how to define what is going on in America and that America is beset with intellectual confusion & chaos. The idea of ‘what America means’ does not exist as a cultural and social agreement. The structures of power, in this environment of profound cultural confusion, will then (must then) rush in to re-establish ‘definitions’. And those definitions are, at the core, business definitions.
I begin to wonder what ‘interests’ stand behind the movement toward the ‘socialism’ that seems to be called for by whats-her-name with her NGD. I say this because, where I now live (Colombia), I watch a socialism take shape. And it is very much in the interests of large business interests to pacify the population and to create a controlled and monitored social and economic *space* for the largest interests to prosper.
It seems to me that there is a similar ‘will’ operating in America right now. Does it come from ‘the people’ or has it been ‘engineered’ for them? The Multiculturalism project, the ‘Walmart America’, the Americanopolis, the elimination of ‘speech’ and also ideas-of-opposition to the present Construct, and also some kind of consolidation of American Empire in a time when American influence is said to be beginning to wane, all of these factors are part of the puzzle of deciphering America in its present crisis.
To agree to ‘like’ the GND (as on FB!) is to agree to a whole range of things that are invisible/emotional, and to agree in spirit to the New America that is taking shape. But the New America is also battling the Old America. And the Old America involves ‘tearing down monuments’ which is also a metaphor for a wide range of activities. Is this mere idea-warfare, or is there a structural, economic issue?
I will place my bet on the following: the present so-called ‘conservative’ establishment — they call them ‘Republicans’ — will capitulate to the New American Progressive Regime. Remember: the American Conservative sold out a long time ago. They will do this because ‘it makes good business sense’. and is necessary ‘for the good of the country’. The so-called ‘extremists will be labeled, vilified, and destroyed by American political police and their agents. My view is that ‘they’ will decide that it is better to do this than to allow the divisions to continue.
But, how this actually plays out on the ground over the next 2-5 years, that is still shrouded in darkness.
Thanks for flagging this. The fact that “people” ‘like’ stupid proposals is why we have elected officials.
The average man on the ground is getting pretty friggin’ tired of this shit. How it plays out will depend on how rapidly these shit sandwiches are rammed down our collective gullet.
And how much resistance we put up.
Hoist the Jolly Roger, cry ‘Havoc!’ and loose the hounds of war!
Absolutely!!!
Apparently the NYT are arguing that delving into the Same Old Red Deal is dirty pool, and that anyone trying to educate a left winger (or anyone else, I guess) about it is evil. “If you want to know what is in it, you must first pass it.”
Hmm … ignorance as a goal. That could work … maybe ? 🤔
AOC should volunteer to quit emitting CO2, immediately, if she wants to show she’s REALLY serious about climate change!
Amazing, Joe. Thank you.
Of course not.
The Green New Deal is a joke.
Unfortunately, Lee missed one. The “Rocket launcher” hanging off Reagan’s shoulder is actually an R.P.G (rocket propelled grenade) launcher, used by Russia and her various allies. This points to obvious collusion (or suspicion thereof) between Reagan and the Russians. /sarcasm, sorry.
That dinosaur is also way too big to be a raptor. The biggest raptor was maybe six feet. And Aquaman used all manner of see creatures to get around. The giant seahorse was just a lark.
Too true. I haven’t seen Aquaman, yet, but I’m expecting to be VASTLY amused.
Unethical breach of Senate Decorum?
Wasn’t there a time in the Senate where sponsors of a Bill to overthrow the Constitution and institute a fascist government in America would have been beaten with canes? Comparing the parody routine to that, I would have to vote ‘No’.
Wait, we can beat her with canes?
Why are we not beating her with canes !?!?
Such treatment is only reserved for the non-Woke, of course.
Now report to the nearest reeducation center for reclamation for even having such a thought!
(for Tim: /sn)
The evidence for my “progressivism is a mental illness” assertion just keeps accumulating.
Mr. Lee’s approach is just right. Somehow the press and the Democrats —- but I repeat myself —- manage to normalize these cockamamie schemes so that ignoring them is not an option. Global whining and its little sister The Green Leap Forward are mainstream arguments somehow, whereas anything not indifferent to God or to fetuses or to common sense is “controversial.” As Mr. Lee must address it, he may as well mock it.
I just discovered this site during research on Charles Grodin. God help me, I love the guy. I never found him funny and Jack Marshall cut his arguments to ribbons, but I love him. Did anybody hereon see ‘Midnight Run’? CG was noxious and unfunny, and De Niro did not have to ruin the film; he could just coast. I must work on my Grodophilia. Anyway, I thank him for leading me to this site. 👍🏼👍🏼
no, thank you for finding it!
I think a big second round of mockery is seriously needed. There were 12 Senate co-sponsors of that bill, including Democratic Presidential Candidates Elizabeth Warren, Kamalah Harris, Amy Klobbuchar, Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Corey Booker. They all cosponsored legislation that wasn’t some small, quiet bill. They held a press conference and talked about it at length in the news. They proudly endorsed it. Then, when the Republicans put it up for a vote, they refused to vote for it. Then they blamed Republicans for letting people vote on their own legislation, they claimed that it needed amendments by Republicans before it would be ready. They claimed it was a ‘dirty trick’ by the Republicans to make them support, on the record, the bill they claimed to support. This needs to be a major talking point in the upcoming Presidential campaign. How can we trust any of these candidates if they won’t stand behind legislation they sponsored or possibly wrote? How can they credibly claim to be better than Trump if they can’t be trusted to do anything they say or believe anything they claim to believe?
In comparison, Trump has been fairly consistent with trying to do what he said he would try to do. I am pretty impressed with Trump’s consistency to his campaign message. he hasn’t always succeeded, but he can only really guarantee he will try. Here are my impressions on his faithfulness to his message (in percentages of what I realistically could have been expected).
Border Wall 60%, he has been consistent, but hasn’t pushed it as hard as he could have
Trade: 90%, he didn’t label China a currency manipulator, but he has renegotiated treaties and taken on unfair international trade to an extent unimaginable for any other president
Tax Cut: 100%, who knew Trump would actually deliver on the Democrat’s cry to reduce the burden on the middle class and increase taxes on the rich? Of course, the Democrats responded by passing bills to protect the rich from Trumps’ new taxes.
Energy: 100%
Affordable Care Act: 25%, (I thought he should have destroyed this law by enforcing it to the letter)
Deregulation: 70% (it is hard to tell because it is covered so little in the press)
Judges: 100%
Draining the Swamp: 25%, although it could be argued that he could do very little in this fashion while being investigated by the swamp. He has illustrated the problem pretty well, however.
Improve the US Economy to Provide Jobs for Americans: 60%
Compare this to Obama’s campaign promises:
Heal the Racial Divide
Reduce healthcare costs
Create 5 million green jobs
Close Guantanamo Bay
Close the Revolving Door for Government Officials to Become Lobbyists
Path to Citizenship for Illegal Aliens
Reduce Oil Consumption
Create a Cap and Trade System
Be Bipartisan in his approach to Congress
Secure the Borders
Restrict Warrantless Wiretaps
Now a lot of Obama’s failures can be attributed to the fact that a lot of what he proposed required Congress, but he had a loyal congress for some time. This also points to the probable truth that Trump has a better idea of what the President’s job is than Obama did. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Trump more or less delivered what he said he would, he has proven to be fairly trustworthy in promises (compared to other Presidents). By comparison, the Democrats have shown extreme untrustworthiness.