Eratosphere Forums - Metrical Poetry, Free Verse, Fiction, Art, Critique, Discussions Able Muse - a review of poetry, prose and art

Forum Left Top

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-03-2017, 09:10 AM
Max Goodman Max Goodman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 1,138
Default

This article suggests Dem leaders think moving toward impeachment endangers their chances "to retake the House and... maybe even the Senate."

I take a longer view. The only way to get anything done anymore is to control White House, House, and Senate. (This is true for the Dems, at least, because of Republican obstructionism--I hope the Dems have learned enough (and care enough) to make this true for Republicans, too, but I doubt it.) My eyes are on 2020. Most voters in recent U.S. elections, I think, vote against something more than they see either party as offering them anything to vote for. The more directly the Dems attack Trump, and the more power they have to do so, the more they energize Trump's base. I hope that in 2018 the Dems pick up seats but fail to retake either house.

P.S. Even if Dems retake WH and Congress, because the right wing is now filling the judicial openings they refused to let Obama fill, for a good long while the courts will be an obstacle to some reforms.

Last edited by Max Goodman; 11-03-2017 at 09:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-03-2017, 09:32 AM
Roger Slater Roger Slater is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 13,770
Default

I disagree. I think it's important for the Dems to take at least the Senate. If the Republicans narrowly control the House, but the Dems control the Senate, perhaps the conditions would be ripe for some actual bipartisanship since the parties would need each other. But if the Dems could take both the House and the Senate, a Republican president would surely be forced to compromise.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-03-2017, 10:01 AM
Max Goodman Max Goodman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 1,138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Slater View Post
It's not a question of the ends justifying the means when the ends and the means are both reprehensible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Slater View Post
But if the Dems could take both the House and the Senate, a Republican president would surely be forced to compromise.
We should compromise with those whose goals are reprehensible? John Kelly would agree.

Bipartisanship was the goal of Presidents Clinton and Obama, both elected with actual majorities. The last two Republican presidents, neither elected with a majority, moved the country hard right. The country deserves better than bipartisanship.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-03-2017, 11:13 AM
Roger Slater Roger Slater is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 13,770
Default

I was thinking of bipartisanship as an improvement over total and complete Republican rule, not as preferable to Democratic rule. I was responding to your expressed hope that the Dems fail to retake either house.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Forum Right Top
Forum Left Bottom Forum Right Bottom
 
Right Left
Member Login
Forgot password?
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 7,840
Total Threads: 18,732
Total Posts: 242,020
There are 168 users
currently browsing forums.
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Sponsor:
Donate & Support Able Muse / Eratosphere
Forum LeftForum Right
Right Right
Right Bottom Left Right Bottom Right

Hosted by ApplauZ Online