Republicans are FINALLY using Democratic tactics

I'm not a Trump supporter, but it looks like it finally took someone like him to get the Repubs to utilize the down and dirty tactics the Dems have used for the past couple decades.

No more of this nonsense where Dems call for bipartisanship only when they are not in power, and the Repubs obey. Where Repub presidents will usually nominate moderate SCOTUS judges such as Souter and Kennedy and Roberts and Stevens and others in order to placate liberals/progressives/socialists, while Dem presidents would appoint extreme leftists such as Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, who the Repubs would willingly confirm. Only the Dems, after all, Bork people.

The Dems used the Reid Rule (the so-called nuclear option) to eliminate filibusters, while the Repubs would comprise in order to confirm cabinet and appellate positions.

Obama used executive orders to bypass congress; good to know if the Repubs ever lose their majority. But with Dems being led by old people in the 70s and having lost over 1,000 state and federal legislative seats and becoming a regional party, this will probably not occur.

Last, I hope the Trump IRS begins to target liberal groups, although he'll probably wait until the next presidential election in 2020, as the Obama administration did in 2012.

Trump is already freezing out CNN, just as Obama did with Fox News. There is enough media now that most people no longer pay much attention to fake news sites such as the NY Times, Washington Post and the network news shows. Or as presidential advisor Steve Bannon (you know, kinda like the Dem's Valerie Jarret) called them, the opposition media.

A glorious time is ahead, indeed...

 

Uh, yeah. I feel like you copied and pasted this from altrightpropaganda.com. Don't click that, it's not a real link.

As for your claims that the republicans answer the call of bi-partisanship, please refer back to Mitch McConnell's statements right after Obama's election as president in 2008. Let me know if you can feel the bipartisanship just flowing from his mouth.

 

Disagree with you on the IRS though. Let's not stoop to their level, although it would be funny to give them a dose of their own medicine. I hope Trump downsizes the IRS dramatically. Looks like he's put on a hiring freeze for all non-military agencies, so we're already off to a good start there.

 

If I remember correctly Obama declared victory after both his election victories and basked in the glow of complete media adulation. I don't recall him reaching across the aisle to his defeated foes McCain or Romney.

 

Quite the opposite. I recall him saying, you lost, I won.

 

I didn't like it when dems did it, I won't like it if repubs do. I would prefer a government of adults.

 

I remember that too. That quote is going to be part of his legacy.

 

Republicans fight back now. The few cuck-arnolds who haven't figured this out will be voted out.

 

I like how you snuck in that "Bork" pun.

 

If this is true, and it's not, but let's say it is, then why should the dems do it now per the OP?

As for not reaching across the aisle, Obama reached across the aisle when he DIDN'T have to on his signature domestic policy issue, Obamacare. He removed the public option in order to draw republican support for the bill. They refused the invitation. They did so because their base would have seen any cooperation as betrayal and they would have been voted out of office. Or so is the fear. So tell me, does either party really want to be publicly labeled as bipartisan? It appears they can only work together as long as the optics work. So no, don't expect it to happen from the dems on much of anything Trump, Ryan, or McConnell does that has no basis in reality or any sense of mainstream politics.

 

This is what you get when you can't do anything but filibuster Trump's supreme court nominees. Who knows how long you can get away with it but you know people will get wise to your crap after awhile.

 

What is the alternative? Do nothing and risk losing members of your own support base? I don't think so. The democrats will likely lose this fight, no doubt, but they will make it and then that will ensure they were not complicit in his appointment. Politically, that is often the best way one can lose.

 

The alternative is they could approve Trump's nominee. Remember Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan or was that too long ago?

 

Good, if you cant beat em...join em. The reps just ask for the dems to do their job. The dems don't want to work...go to plan b.

Next time the dems try to take over the House floor with a sit in...gas em.

 

The dems want to take their ball and go home and are failing to represent their people by not showing up.

 

Every congressional leader who headed a majority, or not, from Tip O'Neill with Reagan to Newt Gingrich with Clinton and Pelosi with Bush in 2006 has voiced their opinion that they would not let a president from the opposition run rampant. Unfortunately, only the Dems stuck to this, as the Repubs rolled over in order to appear bipartisan.

And after the Dems were decimated after the 2010 and 2014 midterms, it was Obama's responsibility to triangulate, as Clinton put it, and moderate his agenda in order to get things done.

I wrote a whole post about Obama's failing to that here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit.../491905-why-obama-failed-his-second-term.html

 

For decades the Democrats have been playing rugby and the Republicans have been playing croquet.

It's about time the Republicans grew a pair.

 

I, though not necassarily a Democrat, can't help but disagree with you. Many Republicans have been playing dirty tricks for years. When Bill Clinton posed a threat to the Republican lock on the Southern States, they had to go above and beyond to destroy the Clinton name, with Sheffield Nelson and others trying to find as many women as possible who could testify against Clinton. The (George ****rt Walker) Bush Campaign had tried to pick up on the trend during Clinton's presidential run. The so called 'vast right wing conspiracy' lasted even to this election, where Kellyanne Conway, one of the many anti-Clinton proxies, became a top official in Trump's campaign. I have rarely seen a Democrat attack a Republican for something like their private life(other than Trump, of course), although that may be because of the Republicans could play the Clinton card to counter it. Personally, I think both sides suck, but I can't help but defend the Dems in this case.

 

It is a government of adults. The problem is we have been dealing with the democrats as if adults act in a particular fashion straight out of an episode of leave it to beaver. Adults act responsibly, reasonably, and rationally in 50s sitcoms, but not real adults.

What about this situation is unlike a civil war? We have armed soldiers marching through the streets waving their flags and attacking the enemy. The propaganda ministry is hard at work painting the enemy as sub-human, and demands that we separate into two distinct countries are starting to be heard and noticed.

I understand the hope that this will all die down after awhile, but I'm just not seeing it. It's been escalating for years now, and if you think last summer was a hot one, wait until the summer of 2017.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think republicans are finally waking up to the possibility that this is more than just sour grapes. If that's the case, do we pretend that these guys will eventually accept Trump as their President, or do we adopt the wartime tactics that they are using now?

 

Oh my.

You are aware that Bill Clinton DID molest many women? And it was Hillary who began the "vast right conspiracy" meme that was patently false?

And you've rarely seen a Dem attack a Repub? Where to start? Both Romney and McCain, after being endorsed by the NY Times, Washington Post and other fake news sites in the primaries, were then savaged by the leftist Democratic mainstream media. From "binders of women' to McCain being (falsely) accused on the front page of the NY Times of having an affair with an aide, the Democratic media attacked them throughout both presidential races.

And why no acknowledgment of the Dems Borking SCOTUS candidates? Or no mention of the Reid rule ending senate filibusters?

Sadly, and I'm not taking a shot here, but you are a prime example of someone who lives within the leftist echo chamber. The only way to be ignorant of what's happened in U.S. politics over the past 20 years is to ONLY read and watch what is actually the Democratic media (AKA the NY Times, Washington Post etc).

 

Bill did. I'm saying that the attacks on him were sort of low-level, because there were a certain amount of Republican officials who did similar. And, yes, Hillary was wrong about the 'vast right wing conspiracy'; it wasn't vast. There were people who trailed the Clintons and tried to destroy the little reputation the had, that's what I'm saying. I personally haven't been involved in politics since 2014, so I can't deny your statement about Romney and McCain. I won't deny that I'm a liberal, either, but I sure as hell ain't a Democrat. I would criticize the Dems more, but Trump sort of occupies that space right now. I can't say I'm a leftist, either. I think of myself as an old school liberal; no SJW Buzzfeed crap.

 

While I agree, you wrote a post about it at that link, I feel your definition of roll over and mine are not aligned.

And Obama was a moderate. He was far more moderate than you appear to make him out to be. He had to convinced by an older, white man to support gay marriage. He proposed and pushed through a democratic Congressional majority a REPUBLICAN health care reform bill, the ACA. So again, not sure what your definition of rolling over is but nothing you talked about convinced me that the republicans were bullied for constantly rolling over for democratic presidents.

If anything, it was Gingrich and company who began the notion of sticking to your guns. It's the right that says the reason the country isn't good is because they don't fully get their way. That's not the talk of rolling over by any stretch. The far left says those things far less often. In fact, I think the reality points to democrats rolling over more often than republicans, at least in the past. Consider most of the post 9/11 response which went through with little debate by either party as a great and relatively recent example.

 

I'm glad to see some fight from the Republicans. The left has exploited the inherent good nature of right-wing Republicans, who are mostly a religious bunch who "turn the other cheek" far too often. The high road doesn't work against the left, they simply don't care enough about that principle for it to change any minds. They want to win elections, and they will do whatever it takes, legal or not, in accordance with their principles or not, in order to do it. Fighting fire with fire seems to be the only language they understand and respect.

 

McConnell said the one term President stuff in October 2010--just before the mid-term elections, not shortly after the election. Love the lack of truth present among liberals, but you are in good company with Obama who also lied about this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html?utm_term=.bffe03ec82a2

- - - Updated - - -

By that time, he had already slapped the other side of the aisle across the face with "I won." He started out belligerent against the Republicans in the House (who also all won their elections), and the result was their opposition to him.

 

That may be true, BUT they gave Obama his Cabinet without all these stupid shenanigans, didn't they? And Obama had some real LOSERS in his bunch...and Harry Reid was the one who used the nuclear option. Now turn around is fair play. Republicans must use all the tools in the toolbox if Dems don't want to play fair. No more Mr. Nice Guy....