Deals? Trump confirms that he'll cut deals with Pelosi and Schumer. Is this Good or Bad?

Posted by $ HarmonKaslow 9 years, 3 months ago to Politics
133 comments | Share | Flag

If the Republicans control the House and Senate, then what sort of deal needs to be made with Pelosi and Schumer? Listen to Trump on MSNBC (Jan 26, 2016)


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am not so sure with Cruz. He has spouted religiosity on occasion in this campaign. Rand Paul kind of doesnt talk a lot about religion fortunately - I think he would probably leave it out of governmental policy. Trump is kind of the same. I think he pays lip service to garner conservative votes, but I dont think he is big into religion. Then theres Carson with the painting of him standiing next to Jesus- that was the beginning of the end for him when it came out. Hillary doesnt talk at all about any religion except for her allegiance to the hillary god. Sanders is just out there- honest, but a bit crazy
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And there in-lies the difference with Cruz, Paul and the others because they'll at least try to use the constitution to guide them along with that little bit of control they have over their brains.

    Yea, there are a lot of misconceptions with "Religion". They really confound the value of the common sense teachings.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I kind of judge how practical religions are. For example- the idea of do unto others as you would have them do unto you- sounds pretty reasonable to me. The fiscal responsibility which seems to be a part of the mormon religion also sounds reasonable. A lot of the jewish religion is very practical (or at least was at one time). The whole family thing is pretty good, assuming that the family people are indeed reasonable too. Even islam has some good points when it comes to fiscal responsibility and things like that. However, the catholic religion seems to be kind of weird- all this pope stuff. Islam with all the intolerance and the violence against the infidels is way out there and kind of stupid in my opinion. Mormons are a bit that way too, but they dont tell me that they will kill me at least. Jews stick together a bit too much and garner a lot of resentment from other people instead of cooperation.

    As to the mysticism, I agree totally. Its a turnoff when the mormons talk about books coming down from some mountain or far away planet... Give me a break !
    Burning at the stake cause you are a witch? Exorcising the devil out of you in some sort of priestly exorcism?

    I have nothing against people believing whatever they want, but I dont want nut cases in government where they can exercise power over me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Time to grow up I say...although government has no mechinism to do that.
    Making deals is politics and that is something that needs to stop. Do what's right, it's not about them and their stray thoughtlessness or wishes...it's about the people and the country.
    Sadly, there are precious few that are willing to do that or even know how.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I gave you a thumbs up because you are willing to have this discussion, everyone should appreciate that, I do, I am still trying to understand it fully myself.
    I am quantumly trying to understand the teachings, not the religious mysticism's. Even though our biblical ancestors weren't consciously aware, they were not dumb. There is value there and we can begin to speak of it in a quantum physical conscious way. Ted and others know this but are taught to express it mystically.
    I agree, there should be some way of getting gays and straights to behave and do the job at hand...(such as it is and that is a different issue). We need not mystify it, it's self evident that one part of this mix has difficulty controlling the temptations of their brain...only the mind and disciplined behavior can do that. We WERE better off before when everyone kept that to themselves. We all, both sides of that issue have trouble with control, some more than others. So, that's what a set of mutually agreed upon rules of behavior is for, it is valuable.
    I agree that when it's stated mystically, religiously, it's a turn off and prone to confound that value.


    I'd rather stand with a principled man, no matter how he gets there than be lead by a man whom has no self control mechanism. - (that's what the Mind does) The brain alone can not control it self, cannot lead or moderate itself. We see that consequence in the behaviors of the past.

    Sadly...there are still many in this world today that never ascended into the mind and most of them happen to occupy government.

    It's one big mess.
    Laughing...you should read my latest post: The cycles of Existence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Bush was and is a RINO he caved to left on command. He gave them an eight year break from Clinton but gave them everything they wanted anyway. Patriot Act, DOHS. Intensified police state, suspension of civil liberties. Lots and lots of lovely vote buying money not to mention flooding corporate system with the same after the fashion of LBJ. Set the stage for their next big act which O'bombed.

    But never mind if people will believe balanced budget with a surplus they will believe anything. So having served as lightning rod he provided a spring board for just about any sock puppet in town.

    O'bombed did the same thing but served to further distance the rule of law from reality and gain acceptance for a more totalitarian mindset as acceptable. So who one the approved list of candidates. RINOS always good for Bush style leg up for the left, the usual bit part players..one female to counter balance Hillary and this time no need for bimbos...yet. so far that's been a side show but a remainder named Cosby.

    At some point what's her face Lucy something or another will be or not be activated and they have all sorts of choices to replaces the wild cards of Trump and Clinton. They can even go to their right wing and revive Carly. She'd make a fine left wing candidate. What they really need is the name Clinton buried in history and eight years of cleaning up after this disaster. All without starting a revolution or more properly a counter revolution.

    The only real wild card IS the military. Now that Obama has officially shit canned the Constiitution are they or are they not going to up hold their oath of office?

    That's where the most important deal must be made ...or....maybe they'll revive Petreus. After all what has he done that Clinton didn't do in spades and twice on Sunday. Not to mentioni a host of others.

    It's all in they write the script...it's National Street Theatre 2016 presenting the Presidential Charade.. Pass the popcorn?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 9 years, 3 months ago
    It shows that Trump is unprincipled; he hasbragged a-
    bout it. Also he has praised eminent domain. I
    would vote for him only if he got the Republican
    nomination--and then without much hope of things
    getting better, even if he won. I intend to vote for
    Cruz in the primary.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Dont bother. This is what I mean about religious zealotry. Its totally irrational
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Way too many similarities. I would love a non-establishment guy or gal too.

    Personally Cruz is my 1st choice. Seems to me he will defend the Constitution as if his life depended on it. I have listened to him, read his book and like his background. I wish he had business experience but he does have the next best thing, which from what I can tell, he is self-made. He came from very poor roots and he had to pay for and earn his way. With his father coming from Cuba, I think he understand oppression. He does have a track record in his short time in the senate of standing up against the establishment and the progressives. No one is perfect, and I worship no one in politics but I believe he is our best hope at reversing the course we are on.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But the war on drugs is a war against the human right to buy things and use them on their own bodies.

    The war on drugs is like prohibition. It cant work to reduce drug use, and its immoral to limit personal freedom.

    As an example of how far its gone, a friend of mine had a hernia operation, and got a prescription for oxycodone (spelling?) for the substantial pain right after the operation. I drove him to my house to recover so I could watch over him, and went out to get his prescription filled. First of all, the hospital that wrote the prescription didnt carry it because of the complexity and liability of the anti-drug laws (I really doubt that there is any violence as a result of this pain killer- when I had to use it for my ankle replacement, I just slept)

    Then I called around and only one pharmacy even carried it at all for the same reason of liability. So I went over there with the prescription in hand, but they would NOT take cash, or my debit card. They needed my friend's debit card and he had to be there. He was not really in a position to get up, let alone go to the pharmacy.

    The net result was that I couldnt even get the damn drug and he had to withstand the pain.

    I say that my rights have been violated by these stupid anti drug laws.

    If you think that makes you safer, just wait until you need something like this drug and experience how hard it is to get it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MountainLady 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh, for crying out loud, term. When will you use your God-given brains.

    Think deeply, think deeply.

    And by the way, don't tell ME what is scary and what isn't. I know far more about human nature than you will ever even get close to.

    I gotta go now. I may answer tomorrow.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MountainLady 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are absolutely wrong. You have failed to think deeply.

    The causes of our sick American society go much deeper than the "War on Drugs". It started with Progressivism, and Feminism and the Great Society.

    The druggies, as in China, lead an unproductive and meaningless life, and endanger the lives of others. But they were leading that same type of life before taking drugs, and that is probably the reason they are addicts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Mostly they scare you because the drugs are illegal, which forces the people who want to use them, or the providers that make and sell them to resort to hiding their operations and using violence. If you could buy the drugs cheaply in walmart, what would be the need for the violence that scares you? We would have a far safer society
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by MountainLady 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Here's the skinny on the Opium Wars: the Brits were engaging in military protectionism, in support of the opium trade to China. Believe it was early 19th century.

    The Chinese government opposed any form of opium trade as it reduced their populace to an unproductive and meaningless existence.

    It was a war.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To be very honest, I know nothing about them except that I have heard the words. Must be that someone fought over opium, but I dont know why or what happened.

    All I am familiar with is the current "war on drugs" which is totally unsuccessful and has spawned major elimination of personal liberty. I would get rid of the DEA in a second. It violates so many rights by breaking into peoples houses, taking their assets and the like.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am not saying drugs are a great thing by any means, but its a person's individual right to take them if they want. If its NOT illegal, violence goes down, less wealth gets given to the drug cartels, prices go down, and frankly the people who cant control their use die off and the problem gets solved. Seeing your friends die should be a good incentive to NOT take the drugs in the first place. If thats not enough incentive, certainly making them illegal wont stop their use
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yeah, hard to tell how he'd work out. In my heart...I am ready for a non-establishment guy. All the beltway guys will get nothing done. Look at how much like Bush Obama is. There are some massive similarities.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But, look at the results of these prohibitions- organized crime was built upon liquor prohibition, and the drug cartels and violent gangs have been built upon anti drug laws. You could argue that coca cola is bad for people so it too should be outlawed. Its a slippery slope when you violate individual rights. Allow for anti drug laws and you open the door for anything the majority feels is not what they like.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo