Senator Flake's speech

[Bob Juch]

I really enjoy the dems pointing the finger at the republican's inability to get anything out of congress when they have vowed to resist anything coming from trump. It's like pushing someone into the mud then accusing them of being dirty.

Please remind me, who has the majority in both houses?

[flockofseagulls104]

Flock,
I am curious, can you point me to a link to which dems vowed to resit 'anything' coming from President Trump? It's is one thing to oppose specific proposal's, it's another to vow to oppose anything, sight unseen - and I would like to see which dem's made that vow.

Thanks,

Do you watch the news? I know they don't feature them, because they are embarrassed about them, but these self styled SJWs are always at the staged demonstrations and all over the internet and in the congress. Here's one site. Find others.

https://www.theresistanceparty.org/

Oooh, here's another fun one. I'lll bet bob has read this one. Some of them are very nasty and spiteful. Most of them are childish.
http://99waystofighttrump.com

Flock,

I'm curious how many of these people are elected officials.

We can spend all day finding activist sites, left and right.

I would say most of the dems in the house, SSS. Judging from their words and actions, Waters, Cummins, Schumer, Wilson, Pelosi just to name a few.

[flockofseagulls104]

I really enjoy the dems pointing the finger at the republican's inability to get anything out of congress when they have vowed to resist anything coming from trump. It's like pushing someone into the mud then accusing them of being dirty.

Please remind me, who has the majority in both houses?

Remind me again, who has voted 100% on party lines in every consequential vote in the senate?

[frogman042]

Do you watch the news? I know they don't feature them, because they are embarrassed about them, but these self styled SJWs are always at the staged demonstrations and all over the internet and in the congress. Here's one site. Find others.

https://www.theresistanceparty.org/

Oooh, here's another fun one. I'lll bet bob has read this one. Some of them are very nasty and spiteful. Most of them are childish.
http://99waystofighttrump.com

Flock,

I'm curious how many of these people are elected officials.

We can spend all day finding activist sites, left and right.

I would say most of the dems in the house, SSS. Judging from their words and actions, Waters, Cummins, Schumer, Wilson, Pelosi just to name a few.

So give me a single quote from any one of them that backs you claim that they vowed to do what you claimed. BTW here is one from that liberal rag The Washington Times that says just the opposite http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -willing-/. But do you know who did what you claimed - Mitch McConnell when President Obama was elected.

[SportsFan68]

Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona announced today in a speech from the Senate floor that he will not run for re-election. Here is his full speech.

It's a very worthwhile read. If the Republican party were like this today (and had been like this during the Obama Administration), we wouldn't be where we are today. I hope more Republican Senators follow his example and that of Senator Corker. --Bob

It was a great speech. Too bad his actions don't match his words. This is from a site calling itself Axios:

Sen. Jeff Flake cast himself as one of President Trump's most vocal opponents as he said "enough" to the president on Tuesday — but he's voted in support of Trump's positions almost 92 percent of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight.

Why it matters: Flake may have genuine disagreements with Trump's tone and style, but you wouldn't be able to tell from his voting record.

This is from Esquire's page: "Colbert Challenges Republicans to Speak Up Without Simultaneously Quitting"

While the chorus of praise grows for anyone with an 'R' next to their name who will rightly criticize the president, Stephen Colbert seems less than impressed. Tuesday kicked off with Tennessee Senator Bob Corker all but calling President Trump a liar who is "debasing" the nation. It ended with Jeff Flake of Arizona declaring he would not run for reelection, because running a campaign as a member of Trump's Republican Party would require debasing himself. But while these are noble enough sentiments, and accurate ones, Colbert pointed out a couple of key details: All these Republicans are partly responsible for this mess, and they're only speaking up when they have nothing to lose.

. . .

The fact is that the vast majority of Republicans agree with President Trump's positions on any number of issues, they just wish he would use his inside voice when talking about them. Senators Corker, Flake, McCain, et al. have consistently voted with the White House, approving Trump's kakistocratic cabinet and backing its drive to deregulate the United States into anarcho-capitalist plutocracy. Flake voted with Trump 90 percent of the time. Just yesterday, he, Corker, and the rest of the Republican caucus all voted to gut consumer protections from big banks. More to the point, the Republican Party has embraced an ideology that demonizes The Other for years, be it Mitt Romney's "takers" rhetoric or Ronald Reagan's "welfare queens." (Emphasis mine. I used underline instead of boldface because I didn't want to use sarcafont.)

So, while Trump is tweeting about the NFL, the Republic are sneaking in a bill that helps the kakistocracy and hurts consumers: Bureau Director Richard Cordray called the Senate vote “a giant setback for every consumer in this country” and urged Trump to veto the repeal legislation.

“It robs consumers of their most effective legal tool against corporate wrongdoing,” Cordray said. “As a result, companies like Wells Fargo and Equifax remain free to break the law without fear of legal blowback from their customers.”

George Slover, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, said the vote “means that big financial companies can lock the courthouse doors and prevent consumers who’ve been mistreated from joining together to seek the relief they deserve under the law.”

[flockofseagulls104]

Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona announced today in a speech from the Senate floor that he will not run for re-election. Here is his full speech.

It's a very worthwhile read. If the Republican party were like this today (and had been like this during the Obama Administration), we wouldn't be where we are today. I hope more Republican Senators follow his example and that of Senator Corker. --Bob

It was a great speech. Too bad his actions don't match his words. This is from a site calling itself Axios:

Sen. Jeff Flake cast himself as one of President Trump's most vocal opponents as he said "enough" to the president on Tuesday — but he's voted in support of Trump's positions almost 92 percent of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight.

Why it matters: Flake may have genuine disagreements with Trump's tone and style, but you wouldn't be able to tell from his voting record.

This is from Esquire's page: "Colbert Challenges Republicans to Speak Up Without Simultaneously Quitting"

While the chorus of praise grows for anyone with an 'R' next to their name who will rightly criticize the president, Stephen Colbert seems less than impressed. Tuesday kicked off with Tennessee Senator Bob Corker all but calling President Trump a liar who is "debasing" the nation. It ended with Jeff Flake of Arizona declaring he would not run for reelection, because running a campaign as a member of Trump's Republican Party would require debasing himself. But while these are noble enough sentiments, and accurate ones, Colbert pointed out a couple of key details: All these Republicans are partly responsible for this mess, and they're only speaking up when they have nothing to lose.

. . .

The fact is that the vast majority of Republicans agree with President Trump's positions on any number of issues, they just wish he would use his inside voice when talking about them. Senators Corker, Flake, McCain, et al. have consistently voted with the White House, approving Trump's kakistocratic cabinet and backing its drive to deregulate the United States into anarcho-capitalist plutocracy. Flake voted with Trump 90 percent of the time. Just yesterday, he, Corker, and the rest of the Republican caucus all voted to gut consumer protections from big banks. More to the point, the Republican Party has embraced an ideology that demonizes The Other for years, be it Mitt Romney's "takers" rhetoric or Ronald Reagan's "welfare queens." (Emphasis mine. I used underline instead of boldface because I didn't want to use sarcafont.)

So, while Trump is tweeting about the NFL, the Republic are sneaking in a bill that helps the kakistocracy and hurts consumers: Bureau Director Richard Cordray called the Senate vote “a giant setback for every consumer in this country” and urged Trump to veto the repeal legislation.

“It robs consumers of their most effective legal tool against corporate wrongdoing,” Cordray said. “As a result, companies like Wells Fargo and Equifax remain free to break the law without fear of legal blowback from their customers.”

George Slover, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, said the vote “means that big financial companies can lock the courthouse doors and prevent consumers who’ve been mistreated from joining together to seek the relief they deserve under the law.”

Stephen Colbert? Really? What did Bill Maher have to say?

[mrkelley23]

I really enjoy the dems pointing the finger at the republican's inability to get anything out of congress when they have vowed to resist anything coming from trump. It's like pushing someone into the mud then accusing them of being dirty.

Please remind me, who has the majority in both houses?

Remind me again, who has voted 100% on party lines in every consequential vote in the senate?

That would be the Republicans, for nearly eight straight years, from 2009 to 2016.

The Democratic senator from Indiana, Joe Donnelly, joined two of his Dem colleagues in voting to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Even if you hide behind the weasel words of "every consequential vote," you have to admit that one was pretty consequential.

Your turn. Find me a vote of consequence between 2009-2016 where the Republicans in the Senate joined the President on an issue of substance. Or maybe it was truly like George Voinovich said -- "If he (Obama) was for it, we had to be against it."

[flockofseagulls104]

Please remind me, who has the majority in both houses?

Remind me again, who has voted 100% on party lines in every consequential vote in the senate?

That would be the Republicans, for nearly eight straight years, from 2009 to 2016.

The Democratic senator from Indiana, Joe Donnelly, joined two of his Dem colleagues in voting to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Even if you hide behind the weasel words of "every consequential vote," you have to admit that one was pretty consequential.

Your turn. Find me a vote of consequence between 2009-2016 where the Republicans in the Senate joined the President on an issue of substance. Or maybe it was truly like George Voinovich said -- "If he (Obama) was for it, we had to be against it."

EXACTLY! The two parties seem to vote as a block on every consequential thing they propose. This is NOT the way we should govern! When one party pushes through something they like without any consensus from any people from the other party, there are a whole lot of people that believe they are being ignored. And they get angry. This is exactly what happened with Obamacare, and what is happening now with every part of the trump agenda. And it is why they are getting rid of the filibuster and other rules that make it harder to pass stuff without agreement from the other side. This was started by Harry Reid and it is being continued by McConnell and Ryan.

This is because one party or both has become way too extreme, or they are being controlled by some other entity. I think it's more on the dem side, but I would listen to an argument that the repubs are too extreme. Although they seem to be splintered between the repubs that are actually dems in disguise and those that are more conservative.

We need to get a Congress that is not so controlled by what someone has defined as their party line. We need independent thinkers that are actually more concerned about what is good for the country as a whole than what is good for their party. That is why I am for term limits and for the Convention of the States to propose Amendments.

[mrkelley23]

Remind me again, who has voted 100% on party lines in every consequential vote in the senate?

That would be the Republicans, for nearly eight straight years, from 2009 to 2016.

The Democratic senator from Indiana, Joe Donnelly, joined two of his Dem colleagues in voting to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Even if you hide behind the weasel words of "every consequential vote," you have to admit that one was pretty consequential.

Your turn. Find me a vote of consequence between 2009-2016 where the Republicans in the Senate joined the President on an issue of substance. Or maybe it was truly like George Voinovich said -- "If he (Obama) was for it, we had to be against it."

EXACTLY! The two parties seem to vote as a block on every consequential thing they propose. This is NOT the way we should govern! When one party pushes through something they like without any consensus from any people from the other party, there are a whole lot of people that believe they are being ignored. And they get angry. This is exactly what happened with Obamacare, and what is happening now with every part of the trump agenda. And it is why they are getting rid of the filibuster and other rules that make it harder to pass stuff without agreement from the other side. This was started by Harry Reid and it is being continued by McConnell and Ryan.

This is because one party or both has become way too extreme, or they are being controlled by some other entity. I think it's more on the dem side, but I would listen to an argument that the repubs are too extreme. Although they seem to be splintered between the repubs that are actually dems in disguise and those that are more conservative.

We need to get a Congress that is not so controlled by what someone has defined as their party line. We need independent thinkers that are actually more concerned about what is good for the country as a whole than what is good for their party. That is why I am for term limits and for the Convention of the States to propose Amendments.

Weirdly, because I"m sure it's not purposeful (Trump's not that astute), we may be moving in that direction. One of the more disturbing trends of the 20th and 21st centuries is the move toward the executive branch doing EVERYTHING when it comes to actually doing the country's business. The Congress sits around and waits for the President to propose legislation, so they can then attack it. But it's not the Presdent's job to legislate. It's easy to see why this was attractive for the Congress, though -- they could spend all their time trying to get re-elected, while the President took all the heat. The one thing I hope comes out of the Trump presidency is a return to the Constitutional roles of the three branches of government.

We, of course, disagree on the way to accomplish this -- I don't think term limits are a good idea, especially not short ones. And a Constitutional Convention, in the age of Trump? Yikes! But I do hope we get back to legislators legislating (and being accountable for that legislation); presidents executing the laws, and judges interpreting the law.

[flockofseagulls104]

And a Constitutional Convention, in the age of Trump?

IT'S NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION! The opposition propaganda is spreading this lie. It is a convention of the states where the states can propose amendments to the constitution. Just like the Congress can propose them. Then any amendments that are proposed have to be passed by 3/4 of the states, just like if they had come from Congress. The only difference is that the STATES propose them, not the Congress. Article V was put into the Constitution to allow the States to amend the Constitution to do things they know the Congress won't do.

This Convention can't re-write the Constitution any more than Congress can.

[Bob78164]

And a Constitutional Convention, in the age of Trump?

IT'S NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION! The opposition propaganda is spreading this lie. It is a convention of the states where the states can propose amendments to the constitution. Just like the Congress can propose them. Then any amendments that are proposed have to be passed by 3/4 of the states, just like if they had come from Congress. The only difference is that the STATES propose them, not the Congress. Article V was put into the Constitution to allow the States to amend the Constitution to do things they know the Congress won't do.

This Convention can't re-write the Constitution any more than Congress can.

And what is to stop this convention from proposing "amendments" that have the effect of repealing and replacing the Constitution? And once such a proposed replacement is out there, especially if they make the decision not to include language requiring passage within seven years, it's out there forever. That's how we ended up with the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. Bear in mind also that a state's approval can itself be obtained by a convention, rather than by the State Legislature. That's how we got the Twenty-First Amendment.

Don't you know your history? The original Constitutional Convention was convened to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to replace it. They went rogue. In that case, I think history adjudges that to be a good thing. Not today, though. I'll be supporting Democratic candidates for state legislatures, and then in those states that have already passed resolutions calling for approval, I'll be encouraging them to revoke that resolution. --Bob

[mrkelley23]

And a Constitutional Convention, in the age of Trump?

IT'S NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION! The opposition propaganda is spreading this lie. It is a convention of the states where the states can propose amendments to the constitution. Just like the Congress can propose them. Then any amendments that are proposed have to be passed by 3/4 of the states, just like if they had come from Congress. The only difference is that the STATES propose them, not the Congress. Article V was put into the Constitution to allow the States to amend the Constitution to do things they know the Congress won't do.

This Convention can't re-write the Constitution any more than Congress can.

Can you explain to me what the difference is? Is it the name you're objecting to? If the purpose of the convention is to amend the Constitution, apparently in a major way, since there are remedies for proposing amendments without convening a convention, then I don't think there's any harm in calling it a Constitutional Convention. If you'd rather, we can call it an Amendment convention, or an Article V Convention, but my position is the same: in the age of Trump, that's not a danger I'm willing to undertake.

[flockofseagulls104]

And a Constitutional Convention, in the age of Trump?

IT'S NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION! The opposition propaganda is spreading this lie. It is a convention of the states where the states can propose amendments to the constitution. Just like the Congress can propose them. Then any amendments that are proposed have to be passed by 3/4 of the states, just like if they had come from Congress. The only difference is that the STATES propose them, not the Congress. Article V was put into the Constitution to allow the States to amend the Constitution to do things they know the Congress won't do.

This Convention can't re-write the Constitution any more than Congress can.

Can you explain to me what the difference is? Is it the name you're objecting to? If the purpose of the convention is to amend the Constitution, apparently in a major way, since there are remedies for proposing amendments without convening a convention, then I don't think there's any harm in calling it a Constitutional Convention. If you'd rather, we can call it an Amendment convention, or an Article V Convention, but my position is the same: in the age of Trump, that's not a danger I'm willing to undertake.

What other ways do you know of proposing amendments that don't have to go through Congress? I mean besides Judges playing political semantic games?

It is an Article V Convention of the States, specifically laid out in the Constitution

http://www.heritage.org/the-constitutio ... amendments

In doing an internet search, it looks like the left and the swamp are very afraid that it might happen. I see several ridiculous articles calling it The Koch Convention. They must be scared. It will not rewrite the Constitution, but possibly be able to put some restraint on Washington, which very much needs it. For any amendment to be implemented, it would require 2 supermajorities. 2/3 of the States have to agree to even meet to propose amendments, and 3/4 have to pass any amendment.

http://idahopoliticsweekly.com/politics ... convention