It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No waves Reflections on the mid terms

page: 4
36
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I saw that... and laughed pretty hard, couldn't help but think Troll level Grand master with that move.




posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Grambler

It's going to be very frustrating for Nancy Pelosi. She won't have 100% Dem cohesion for her most radical proposals. And the Senate will shoot down much of the Democratic agenda that does get passed in the House.

In summary: NO Trump Impeachment. NO Kavanaugh Impeachment. NO Abolishment of ICE. NO Medicare for all. NO tax increases.



And then there’s that pesky VETO stamp sitting on the oval office desk...



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

You're forgetting that they have the power to initiate investigations, too, and I feel like this is going to become an abused power very, very quickly.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Probably has enough dirt to use on her to deal with her effectively. She really is nothing but a parrot of the Democrat Party--he's a figurehead and not much more.

Why would he want someone capable of critical thinking and actual ideas of their own to fight with him?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Lab4Us

But if he overuses that then the Dems can just point at Trump as the cause of gridlock and hurt his chances in 2020.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: face23785

You're forgetting that they have the power to initiate investigations, too, and I feel like this is going to become an abused power very, very quickly.



I didn't forget that at all. They will be meaningless investigations, which will only further drive away moderates. Let them have at it, it's politically damaging to them.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Lab4Us

But if he overuses that then the Dems can just point at Trump as the cause of gridlock and hurt his chances in 2020.


If the people believe that. You can override a veto with a bipartisan bill. If all he vetoes is progressive nonsense, I doubt that will hurt him much in 2020.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Bigburgh
a reply to: Grambler




So there was no wave of any color,


Hopefully this means that the people are keeping it center of the line. Keeping it in check😊


I am for small government.

SO to me, sometimes gridlock is good. The less they are doing in congress, the less harm they can do.



Are in favor of Trumps expansion of government spending?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Bigburgh
a reply to: Grambler




So there was no wave of any color,


Hopefully this means that the people are keeping it center of the line. Keeping it in check😊


I am for small government.

SO to me, sometimes gridlock is good. The less they are doing in congress, the less harm they can do.



Are in favor of Trumps expansion of government spending?


No not at all.

In fact I have routinely called him out for this, and the rest of the republicans that claim to be fiscally responsible untiol they get power and spend spend spend.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

If the bill is getting to him in the first place it has bipartisan support.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Lab4Us

But if he overuses that then the Dems can just point at Trump as the cause of gridlock and hurt his chances in 2020.


As if they won't anyway?



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

To be fair it's always been the case if Congress is ineffective the President gets the blame.

Just look at Obama. The GOP leadership came right out and said they were going to do everything in their power to make Obama a one term President. Which they primarily tried to accomplish by being obstructionists in Congress. What happened when election time rolled around? A large number of Dems got voted out because Obama got blamed for an ineffective Congress.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Teikiatsu

To be fair it's always been the case if Congress is ineffective the President gets the blame.

Just look at Obama. The GOP leadership came right out and said they were going to do everything in their power to make Obama a one term President. Which they primarily tried to accomplish by being obstructionists in Congress. What happened when election time rolled around? A large number of Dems got voted out because Obama got blamed for an ineffective Congress.


But Obama won.

Is it too much to ask these damn people to do their jobs and care about the people instead of maintaining their jobs?

And I mean that on all sides, trump included.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Lol, yeah nice try. The dems won and won big. Just once I would like to see a rwnj try to tell the truth. Anyway, whatever lie you have tell yourself so you can make it through the day pal. Roflmao. a reply to: Grambler



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: soundguy
Lol, yeah nice try. The dems won and won big. Just once I would like to see a rwnj try to tell the truth. Anyway, whatever lie you have tell yourself so you can make it through the day pal. Roflmao. a reply to: Grambler



Your calling me a right wing nut job really buttresses your point!



I am glad you are so amused by your own inane comment that you are rolloing on the fliooir laughing your buttocks off though!



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine

The problem is, you've got wild socialists running one party. I wish I was wrong, but watch and see, dems will only obstruct. They won't work with Republicans. Their idea of compromise is 90% what they want and 10% what the other side wants.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

It's not a wave. If you call this a wave, it's a wave almost every election year. Dems will end up around +35, cook report predicted +45 going into Tuesday.

A wave is 2006 or 2010. Dems gained 59 seats in 2006 and took the senate. Republicans gained 63 in 2010 and 6 senate seats.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Exactly!

All I want from my govt. is safe, secure borders, and repair infrastructure when it needs such.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I know we're talking semantics and political definitions here, but...it sure looked like a Blue wave to me? The house changed sides.

It's not a Tsunami or anything. And it wasn't a massive defeat or anything. it was just a little Blue wave.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: soundguy

As is usual with you, you do insist upon seeing what isn't there.

They gained, or possibly will since there are still uncalled races, about 30 seats, roughly.

That's about par for the course as these things go during the mid-terms.

Yes, they won the House. Who has the Senate? Who has the White House? Who has the Supreme Court, though it shouldn't matter, but does, again?

Once in a very great while, you really ought to at least look at the reality of the situation. 23 seats isn't anything like the majority needed to do as they will.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join