Duck07 Thread

Anything that wont fit in any of the other forums

Moderators: greenyellow, UOducksTK1

Post Reply
rentdodger
One Star Recruit
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:38 pm
Location: Paradise Valley, Az

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by rentdodger »

Duck07 wrote:
rentdodger wrote: We need a functioning staffed government to get back to normalcy. That should be a non-partisan goal of everyone.
And yet all we're going to get is a Trump vs Biden debate/choice.
With your vast knowledge/experience tell me how we solve that problem?

All I see from you is finger pointing.

Free everything like Bernie wants? Or a President Tom Cotton that would curtail all rights and turn the clock back 50 yrs.

There is a lot of grey in between the ends of the spectrum.
rentdodger
One Star Recruit
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:38 pm
Location: Paradise Valley, Az

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by rentdodger »

Duck07 wrote:
rentdodger wrote:
Duck07 wrote:
StevensTechU wrote:But please, guys, argue with me more about how we're better off attacking legitimate democratic processes, the 4th branch of government (journalism), shifting from a relational means of international affairs to a transactional one, and intentionally trying to divide Americans.
Do you not realize that this was all occurring under the last administration?
Really?

Please document the financial malfeasance of the last administration?

With Trump it started from day 1. His inaugural committee can’t account for 40-60 million dollars and it goes downhill from there.

I have a lot of issues with Obama’s complacency and detail. He wasn’t cleaning out the vault on the job.
Not a single person was charged with any crimes relating to the massive fraud from the mortgage crisis, there's one example but I probably need to provide more since the burden of proof rests solely on me, lol.
Well we can agree on that. Trump made of of those guys his treasury secretary
User avatar
lukeyrid13
All-American
Posts: 10484
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:58 am
GM: Portland TrailBlazers

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by lukeyrid13 »

StevensTechU wrote:I see I've run into a room full of "it was everybody BUT him" folks.
I already said, I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 and think he has the worst decorum of any president.
User avatar
Duck07
All-American
Posts: 15952
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Duck07 »

rentdodger wrote: Well we can agree on that. Trump made of of those guys his treasury secretary
And people like Kamala Harris that didn't go after Steve Mnuchin is the alternative.
rentdodger wrote: With your vast knowledge/experience tell me how we solve that problem?

All I see from you is finger pointing.

Free everything like Bernie wants? Or a President Tom Cotton that would curtail all rights and turn the clock back 50 yrs.

There is a lot of grey in between the ends of the spectrum.
We start by getting actual Third (and 4th, and 5th) Parties into the Debates so they are part of the Discussion, which will in turn force D's and R's to actual represent what their constituents want. This is also part of Campaign Finance Reform.

Acknowledge that the 2 biggest pillars/problems are Economic and Foreign Policy issues that don't help the average American, nor most people abroad who don't capitulate to our desires.

Of course I'm finger pointing, but I'm not deflecting blame for Trump. I, along with others, simply recognize that the D's/R's are just opposite sides of the same coin. If the majority of American's don't come to recognize these commonalities, then yes, we are going to end up with Tom Cotton as President.

I don't like all of Tulsi's positions but I wanted to see her included. I don't like all of Jo Jorgenson's positions for the Libertarians but I also live in Oregon, and our Electoral Colleges votse are going to Biden so it doesn't really matter in the end. I also recognize that even a Sanders administration would never be able to push through any of its most basic desires of reform so in some regards, Bernie is just as much of a F-You vote as Trump was (minus the part where Bernie capitulated and realized he doesn't stand on any principles).
Image
rentdodger
One Star Recruit
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:38 pm
Location: Paradise Valley, Az

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by rentdodger »

Duck07 wrote:
rentdodger wrote: Well we can agree on that. Trump made of of those guys his treasury secretary
And people like Kamala Harris that didn't go after Steve Mnuchin is the alternative.
rentdodger wrote: With your vast knowledge/experience tell me how we solve that problem?

All I see from you is finger pointing.

Free everything like Bernie wants? Or a President Tom Cotton that would curtail all rights and turn the clock back 50 yrs.

There is a lot of grey in between the ends of the spectrum.
We start by getting actual Third (and 4th, and 5th) Parties into the Debates so they are part of the Discussion, which will in turn force D's and R's to actual represent what their constituents want. This is also part of Campaign Finance Reform.

Acknowledge that the 2 biggest pillars/problems are Economic and Foreign Policy issues that don't help the average American, nor most people abroad who don't capitulate to our desires.

Of course I'm finger pointing, but I'm not deflecting blame for Trump. I, along with others, simply recognize that the D's/R's are just opposite sides of the same coin. If the majority of American's don't come to recognize these commonalities, then yes, we are going to end up with Tom Cotton as President.

I don't like all of Tulsi's positions but I wanted to see her included. I don't like all of Jo Jorgenson's positions for the Libertarians but I also live in Oregon, and our Electoral Colleges votse are going to Biden so it doesn't really matter in the end. I also recognize that even a Sanders administration would never be able to push through any of its most basic desires of reform so in some regards, Bernie is just as much of a F-You vote as Trump was (minus the part where Bernie capitulated and realized he doesn't stand on any principles).[/quote

rentdodger wrote:

I respect that and in some ways agree with that.

For the record I am a registered independent and have long advocated for a moderate 3rd party that balances/swings the crazies out of the system. With that you would see more legislation coming to the floor and actual problems being dealt with. You might see some movement towards this from the Lincoln Project guys. With Citizens United chances are remote.

I will state this as far as the election goes. Here in Arizona/Maricopa County, independents are breaking against Trump in a major way. If Biden does get elected(I’ll stick my neck out and say I believe he will). There will be tremendous pressure on him to waive the filibuster with a D senate and make some sweeping changes in our election laws and security, immigration reform and macro-corporate tax reform. Mitch McConnell has systematically killed any bi-partisan legislation for anything.

As far as your Kamala Harris comment, prosecution should have only been done through Federal DOJ(southern district), not at state level. Obama buckled and killed it.
User avatar
StevensTechU
All Pac-12
Posts: 5391
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:25 am
Location: Hoboken, NJ

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by StevensTechU »

Quietduck wrote:Nope, just an accurate view of our system. No president has been able to control congress period. Congress has its own perks and powers and jealously guards its priviliges. Since when have you seen a unified political party on either side of the fence... And the leaders of the Republicans or the Democrats is not the current President in office. To think so shows an uneducated view. Why should the power brokers take office? That only restricts their power and limits what they can do. Any student of history or politics knows that the movers and shakers love the status as it is. The only surprise was the Donald was elected, the last time I can think an outsider like him was elected as Andrew Jackson or Abraham Lincoln and they were hated by the power brokers of their time even more than Donald. Matter of fact that if Lincoln hadn't won the Civil War and died as a president you would of heard a lot more negative about him both true and false

By the way Antiquated and narrow minded usually means I can't argue with you so I'm going to call you names. So thank you
I can't argue with someone who doesn't want to acknowledge reality, so you win by default. Golf clap. The suggestion that Congress' actions are in no way shaped by the a popular president (within the party) who constantly threatens to endorse primary opponents is probably my favorite.
User avatar
Quietduck
Four Star Recruit
Posts: 606
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:43 pm

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Quietduck »

Again you fall to the Ad Hominin attack with sarcasm added in. Your teacher must be embarassed. Instead you add an Ad populum error as well. Prove I'm wrong rather than call me names. Show me a Congress that walked in lockstep with the President. That's all you have to do to shut me up. Show me a Congress that didn't add Pork to a bill for their local power brokers (bridges to no where anyone?). Does a President have influence, if he is popular he does but only when it comes voting time, but he never has any actual power in Congress. That belongs to the party leaders. The majortiy leader or the minority leader. They appoint the committe chairs and control which laws get viewed, voted on or passed. Again show me or tell me some facts. I gave you facts to dispute so dispute them and save your golf clap or any other type of sarcasm for people who believe your opinions without facts.
User avatar
greenyellow
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35675
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:54 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by greenyellow »

Now you know why I try not to talk politics on this board. People fall in on their beliefs/"facts" and personal attacks start coming. Last presidential election, we lost a few people over political disagreements (one of which I got involved in and regret to this day.) I'll show up in the thread periodically to monitor things but I won't hesitate to pull the plug for a bit if things get too heated.
Image
huckthefuskies
Three Star Recruit
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:55 pm

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by huckthefuskies »

Funny thing is I agree with both. Also why I roll my eyes each election when voters of the defeated party cry the world is ending and they need to move to Canada or wherever. I swear our system is based on not allowing much to change one way or the other. Probably the biggest long term change in the last 4 years has been the shear steam rolling of placing judges at almost every level. If Biden wins he will just reverse Trumps reversal of Obama policies and the next president will reverse those. I have never understood how people get so emotional for presidential elections.... when does football start?
wlduck
Sophomore
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:19 pm

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by wlduck »

huckthefuskies wrote:Funny thing is I agree with both. Also why I roll my eyes each election when voters of the defeated party cry the world is ending and they need to move to Canada or wherever. I swear our system is based on not allowing much to change one way or the other. Probably the biggest long term change in the last 4 years has been the shear steam rolling of placing judges at almost every level. If Biden wins he will just reverse Trumps reversal of Obama policies and the next president will reverse those. I have never understood how people get so emotional for presidential elections.... when does football start?
Because they have a way larger effect on peoples lives than you are acknowledging. Example #1: Had 9/11 happened exactly the same way, it is almost inconceivable that had Gore been president he would have attacked Iraq. That strategy was the result of the "Neo-Cons" seeing an opportunity to enact their long held belief that it would be easy to create a Democracy in the middle east that would spread to other countries.

Gore would have attacked Afghanistan, and who knows how that would have played out differently without the distraction Iraq- probably better but not allot. But certainly history would be different and many humans who were killed would be alive today.
User avatar
StevensTechU
All Pac-12
Posts: 5391
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:25 am
Location: Hoboken, NJ

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by StevensTechU »

Quietduck wrote:Again you fall to the Ad Hominin attack with sarcasm added in. Your teacher must be embarassed. Instead you add an Ad populum error as well. Prove I'm wrong rather than call me names. Show me a Congress that walked in lockstep with the President. That's all you have to do to shut me up. Show me a Congress that didn't add Pork to a bill for their local power brokers (bridges to no where anyone?). Does a President have influence, if he is popular he does but only when it comes voting time, but he never has any actual power in Congress. That belongs to the party leaders. The majortiy leader or the minority leader. They appoint the committe chairs and control which laws get viewed, voted on or passed. Again show me or tell me some facts. I gave you facts to dispute so dispute them and save your golf clap or any other type of sarcasm for people who believe your opinions without facts.
It gets what it deserves.

If my kids do what I want them to do 75% of the time, then you must be of the mind that I have no influence on them since they don't do what I want 100% of the time.

Here's your relevant information. Save for less than a handful, it's routinely 90%+ for Republican senators, not 75% used for illustration. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/co ... ump-score/ Further evidence that this is a power entrenched in the presidency, https://www.rollcall.com/2014/02/03/sen ... dies-show/

What facts did you give? The above are facts. What you shared is what you remember from Civics class with some 'ad' thrown in for Latin flavor. Credit for memory but zero credit for explanation for current events. So I'm sorry that your Civics course didn't teach you that the President is also a head of a party and, in being so, has an outsized influence on members of his party regardless of their branch of government.
User avatar
Duck07
All-American
Posts: 15952
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Duck07 »

StevensTechU wrote:
Quietduck wrote:Again you fall to the Ad Hominin attack with sarcasm added in. Your teacher must be embarassed. Instead you add an Ad populum error as well. Prove I'm wrong rather than call me names. Show me a Congress that walked in lockstep with the President. That's all you have to do to shut me up. Show me a Congress that didn't add Pork to a bill for their local power brokers (bridges to no where anyone?). Does a President have influence, if he is popular he does but only when it comes voting time, but he never has any actual power in Congress. That belongs to the party leaders. The majortiy leader or the minority leader. They appoint the committe chairs and control which laws get viewed, voted on or passed. Again show me or tell me some facts. I gave you facts to dispute so dispute them and save your golf clap or any other type of sarcasm for people who believe your opinions without facts.
It gets what it deserves.

If my kids do what I want them to do 75% of the time, then you must be of the mind that I have no influence on them since they don't do what I want 100% of the time.

Here's your relevant information. Save for less than a handful, it's routinely 90%+ for Republican senators, not 75% used for illustration. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/co ... ump-score/ Further evidence that this is a power entrenched in the presidency, https://www.rollcall.com/2014/02/03/sen ... dies-show/

What facts did you give? The above are facts. What you shared is what you remember from Civics class with some 'ad' thrown in for Latin flavor. Credit for memory but zero credit for explanation for current events. So I'm sorry that your Civics course didn't teach you that the President is also a head of a party and, in being so, has an outsized influence on members of his party regardless of their branch of government.
No to be rude, but what you are both arguing is quite inane. Yes, the President CAN influence their Party. Yes, the President does NOT draft bills, he merely signs them into law. That things have progressed or trended a certain way does not mean that is how it is. It's just how its been done and I think a majority of people all want it to be done better and differently than it has.

It's why I'm done with Sen Wyden and Merkely as well as Rep DeFazio - none of them actually do anything of substance once in Congress and they've all been there for a long time. DeFazio was whining about the PPP money that people took but didn't bother to include any language that would have prevented fraud but he sure likes to complain about things he had an ability to change by blaming others!

Complaining about the President and not putting effort into our legislators to do their jobs is the issue I have a bigger problem with. It's why we continue to have people that look back fondly at Obama and Reagan without understanding the totality of what they did and how awful it was for all except a minor few. Kate Brown whining to Trump over a lack of N95 masks is peak stupidity - You're the Governor of this state, why don't you implore manufacturers to take the lead?
Image
User avatar
Quietduck
Four Star Recruit
Posts: 606
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:43 pm

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Quietduck »

I'll keep it brief these are facts

First, only congress can or does create and approve taxing and spending. The president does not do it so cannot be held responsible be they republican or democrat.
Second, The states have the authority and have used it on Covid per the 10 th amendment so all your economic arguments again cannot be used against the president.

Thank you for at least posting a link rather than just calling names. I'll take a look.

For the record, I find Donald Trump a rude and crude man who doesn't hide his flaws but I find it more offensive when opinion is substituted for facts. When that happens we as people usually end up creating some of the worst disasters the world has ever seen. If anyone doesn't believe just read a little history. Choose a country and within 100 years you will find murder, genocide, and corruption rampant when opinions are substituted for facts.
User avatar
Duck07
All-American
Posts: 15952
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Duck07 »

wlduck wrote:
huckthefuskies wrote:Funny thing is I agree with both. Also why I roll my eyes each election when voters of the defeated party cry the world is ending and they need to move to Canada or wherever. I swear our system is based on not allowing much to change one way or the other. Probably the biggest long term change in the last 4 years has been the shear steam rolling of placing judges at almost every level. If Biden wins he will just reverse Trumps reversal of Obama policies and the next president will reverse those. I have never understood how people get so emotional for presidential elections.... when does football start?
Because they have a way larger effect on peoples lives than you are acknowledging. Example #1: Had 9/11 happened exactly the same way, it is almost inconceivable that had Gore been president he would have attacked Iraq. That strategy was the result of the "Neo-Cons" seeing an opportunity to enact their long held belief that it would be easy to create a Democracy in the middle east that would spread to other countries.

Gore would have attacked Afghanistan, and who knows how that would have played out differently without the distraction Iraq- probably better but not allot. But certainly history would be different and many humans who were killed would be alive today.
I take you mean 9/11/2001 and not 9/11/1971 where we bombed Chile's Presidential Palace to install a Fascist Dictator by the name of Pinochet?

Some fun facts about 2001: There were a few "First-time ever" incidents that happened like, First time a steel building collapsed at free-fall speeds due to fire damage. This has never happened before or since.

First time that a plane crashed and there was no plane wreckage or debris, just a burning hole. It would happen twice that day when there would be no plane wreckage at the Pentagon either! Planes that hit the ground or other objects tend to leave massive debris fields behind with dead bodies. There weren't any.

First time a plane could maneuver over the top of a freeway, over the trees but then descend back down to ground level while avoiding all security cameras and striking the side of the Pentagon that just underwent a 2-Billion renovation a day after Donald Rumsfeld says 2.3 Trillion was missing. 2.3 Trillion.

Everything that has happened since 9/11 actually disproves your first sentence. There is Genocide, Slavery and we started an illegal "Military Conflict" after a false flag attack on ourselves. We Do Not Care. We aren't even apathetic to it, it just doesn't bother us that these things exist.
Image
User avatar
Phalanx
Senior
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:50 pm

Re: Duck07 Thread

Post by Phalanx »

wlduck wrote:
Because they have a way larger effect on peoples lives than you are acknowledging. Example #1: Had 9/11 happened exactly the same way, it is almost inconceivable that had Gore been president he would have attacked Iraq. That strategy was the result of the "Neo-Cons" seeing an opportunity to enact their long held belief that it would be easy to create a Democracy in the middle east that would spread to other countries.

Gore would have attacked Afghanistan, and who knows how that would have played out differently without the distraction Iraq- probably better but not allot. But certainly history would be different and many humans who were killed would be alive today.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Gore was in total agreement with attacking Iraq, but like a good globalist, he wanted to do it under the auspices of the U.N. rather than 'unilaterally'. In fact, Gore criticized Bush Sr. for leaving Iraq so soon. He wanted to start the quagmire a decade earlier. Ironically, in the presidential debates, Gore was the neo-Con, and Bush spoke about not wanting to engage in 'nation-building' and favored a 'humble foreign policy'.

"I was one of the few Democrats in the US Senate who supported the war resolution in 1991. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration's hasty departure from the battlefield, even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds of the north and the Shiites of the south - groups we had encouraged to rise up against Saddam." -Gore in September 2002


The truth is that the globalist, neo-con agenda is prevalent in both parties. That's why all the neo-con Republicans are lining up against Trump in this election in favor of an establishment Democrat.
Post Reply