An establishment politician is typically a career politician.  It is one that votes along party lines rather than voting the way that his/her constituents prefer.

 

A non-establishment politician will vote according to The Constitution, and what his/her constituents prefer. 

 

You mean the "establishment politician" is the one that disagrees with you, and the "non-establishment" politician is the one that votes they way you like. Got it.

 

"Career politician" means what? Five years? Ten? 

 

If they voted for me, then my votes must reflect the will of my constituents, right? Or should I vote the way the people who didn't vote for me (i.e., the minority) want me to vote? So confusing.

 

If they don't think like I do they are not following the Constitution! Of course! Ipso facto!

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

If they voted for me, then my votes must reflect the will of my constituents, right? Or should I vote the way the people who didn't vote for me (i.e., the minority) want me to vote? So confusing.

 

 

The problem arises when you vote for someone based on his (her) stated position and then the politician decides to support a different agenda. The reason the Pubs did so well in 2014 is that the ran on a 'stop Obama' message. The very first thing the Pubs did after the election was to pass Obama's 2015 budget. The second thing was the Corker bill, which essentially gave Obama carte blanche to negotiate any deal he wanted with Iran.


 

On a more personal note, I lost my previous home when a massive tax increase was passed on a 3-2 vote, with the deciding vote being cast by a woman who ran on a promise of no property tax increase.


 

We are all subjects of the ruling class. The votes of the common people are only to choose which letter goes behind the name of your supposed representative.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You mean the "establishment politician" is the one that disagrees with you, and the "non-establishment" politician is the one that votes they way you like. Got it.

 

"Career politician" means what? Five years? Ten? 

 

If they voted for me, then my votes must reflect the will of my constituents, right? Or should I vote the way the people who didn't vote for me (i.e., the minority) want me to vote? So confusing.

 

If they don't think like I do they are not following the Constitution! Of course! Ipso facto!

 

No.  You don't get it and I am not really surprised.  I'll give you a very elementary example.

 

An "establishment politician" is one that say runs on not raising taxes on widgets no matter what.  However, his party makes a "deal" with the other party that he will back a tax hike on widgets in exchange for something else.  He's not fulfilling his promise to the people that voted for him based on his promise not to raise taxes on widgets.  He's doing what is politically necessary to get and/or retain power.

 

This happens on both sides of the aisle, and if people think otherwise than they surely are in the dark.

 

Regarding a career politician.  That's one that gets elected to office, doesn't reflect or vote for their constituency, yet does everything they can to stay in office.  Again, this happens on both sides.  Take a look at this list and sort it by length of their term.  Just a couple of notable people on that list, Nancy Pelosi (D) has been a representative for 47 years, 68 days 28 years, 115 days
 .  John Boehner ® the subject of this thread has been in congress for 41 years, 47 days  24 years, 265 days
.

 

I suspect that both examples that I gave have probably been in congress longer than you have been alive.  Do you think that being at a job for over 24 years is a career?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Good he had no backbone and was simply controlled oposition to Obama.

---

No.  You don't get it and I am not really surprised.  I'll give you a very elementary example.

 

An "establishment politician" is one that say runs on not raising taxes on widgets no matter what.  However, his party makes a "deal" with the other party that he will back a tax hike on widgets in exchange for something else.  He's not fulfilling his promise to the people that voted for him based on his promise not to raise taxes on widgets.  He's doing what is politically necessary to get and/or retain power.

 

This happens on both sides of the aisle, and if people think otherwise than they surely are in the dark.

 

Regarding a career politician.  That's one that gets elected to office, doesn't reflect or vote for their constituency, yet does everything they can to stay in office.  Again, this happens on both sides.  Take a look at <a class="bbc_url" href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_by_age'>this list</a> and sort it by length of their term.  Just a couple of notable people on that list, Nancy Pelosi (d) has been a representative for 47 years, 68 days.  John Boehner ® the subject of this thread has been in congress for 41 years, 47 days.

 

I suspect that both examples that I gave have probably been in congress longer than you have been alive.  Do you think that being at a job for over 47 years is a career?

What if a politician gets into office and finds out that unless he compromises, he can't fulfill any of his promises, but if he compromises, he can fulfill half his promises. What should he do?

---

What if a politician gets into office and finds out that unless he compromises, he can't fulfill any of his promises, but if he compromises, he can fulfill half his promises. What should he do?

Compromise is total capitulation to the opposition. At least that's what people keep telling me here.

---

Good he had no backbone and was simply controlled oposition to Obama.

I do kind of feel bad for him. Wrangling, what appears to be a fractured party of many small factions, couldn't be easy.

---

What if a politician gets into office and finds out that unless he compromises, he can't fulfill any of his promises, but if he compromises, he can fulfill half his promises. What should he do?

 

Obviously you didn't answer my question.

 

As far as your question.  Compromise with whom exactly?  Compromise with the opposing party or compromise with the "leaders" (establishment) of his party?  Ideally, the politician should stand by their point-of-view that got them elected and should not really compromise with either to get that done.

 

Going back to my previous example, if a bill is introduced that raises taxes on widgets, then the politician should refuse it because he ran and made a promise not to raise taxes on widgets.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Compromise is total capitulation to the opposition. At least that's what people keep telling me here.

 

What compromise? Total capitulation to the opposition = total capitulation.


 

The Pubs got nothing out of the Corker bill. They got nothing out of the "Cromnibus" budget bill. Harry Reid even shut down the government over a budget bill because it changed one small part of ACA, a part that Obama eventually figured out needed to be changed anyway so he did so unilaterally. Go figure. Basically the Dems haven't ceded any ground in a compromise on any bill since 2006. boehner and McConnell have caved on every issue. They sometimes talk the talk, but never walk the walk.


 

Total capitulation.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Government shutdown = President Sanders

---

I'm gonna miss his glow...

 

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Obviously you didn't answer my question.

 

As far as your question.  Compromise with whom exactly?  Compromise with the opposing party or compromise with the "leaders" (establishment) of his party?  Ideally, the politician should stand by their point-of-view that got them elected and should not really compromise with either to get that done.

 

Going back to my previous example, if a bill is introduced that raises taxes on widgets, then the politician should refuse it because he ran and made a promise not to raise taxes on widgets.

 

What if he also promised to try to repeal Obamacare, and then when he got into office, the opposition said, if you vote to raise taxes on widgets, we will repeal Obamacare?  

 

Never compromise?   Never break a promise?  Even if breaking one promise means achieving another promise? 

---

Government shutdown = President Sanders

 

Not necessarily.  There are a few big reasons why.  

 

1.) THIS

 

Perspective is everything. If the goal was actually what they have convinced you it is they could gobafyer legislation banning abortions or fetal harvesting but that is not what they are doing. They are trying to shut the whole thing down without a care for the people losing the services that is the vast majority of what the operation does. The GOP created a fresh wedge issue and you guys bought it. It's as simple as that.

 

is patently and verifiably FALSE!  the GOP isn't trying to SHUT DOWN planned parenthood.  Planned parenthood receives grants from executive agencies, but it has many other revenue streams (including the illegal sale of fetal tissue.)  If the left cares so badly about it then let the Clinton foundation, the Steir brothers, George Soros and all the other uber rich lefties pay for it.  

 

2.) Planned Parenthood doesn't appear in a single line item in the budgets approved by congress.  The idea that the group is funded by tax payer dollars is actually an abuse of executive power.  This isn't just allocating money that congress has approved for certain departments.  This is directly contravening the expressed will of the people and their elected representatives because the executive is fully aware that the measure would never have received approval in the first place.  

 

3.) The vast majority of the public has never seen the videos.  In reality, its those in favor of PP that are on the extreme in this one.  a slight majority of people in this country are pro life to start with.  of those who are pro choice a majority would still object to late term abortions that would yield meaningful fetal tissue anyway.  In most other industrialized countries cut offs for abortion are earlier than they are in the US for that very reason.  The mainstream media has gotten away with only referencing HIGHLY EDITED footage in most of their interviews.  If this thing really did go down they wouldn't be able to keep dodging the evidence and in a lot of cases most sensible people who are pro choice would disagree with the way PP has handled this.  

 

4.) Contrary to what the EXTREME left is advocating, this is a compromise position.  The GOP is willing to increase overall funding for womens health and spread it to the other institutions that can provide services to women in need of family planning, cancer screening or contraceptives.  The idea that PP is too big to fail is a myopic view of the uber left and is easily explainable.  

 

5.) You have a top tier of charismatic candidates that are already in the national spotlight that could carry the message.  Carly Fiorina herself could kill the democratic field, but throw in Trump Cruz Rubio and the bunch and we would own the sunday news Shows.  

 

6.) as has been pointed out the government never really shuts down.  

 

7.) That's what they said in 2013...  2014 we won the senate.  IT's not even October the year before the election.  Voters aren't going to be overly concerned with the discretionary 15% of the government going on paid vacation for a couple of weeks for the sake of trying to save a few children from being mindlessly and ruthlessly slaughtered.  

 

Just as an aside, in the senate i believe that they are trying to pass a bill that would protect pain capable children born alive.  I thought that the whole concept of sentience (loosely defined as the ability to perceive pain) not to mention the fact that the children are developed to the point of having organs to begin with would mean that even under the sliding scale of protection offered in the Roe v. Wade decision would mean that we would be protecting the unborn at this stage of development in the first place.  

 

Bottom line, the concept of pro-choice was derived on the idea that we were talking about a glob of cells that didn't really resemble a human being.  Babies heads being cut off and put into boxes is going to turn off a significant portion of the electorate. 

---

To the op, i don't think that this is a great thing.  I would have loved to take our chances in a budget fight.  I think that we could have won with the right strategy and i already think that we have the candidates to get the message out.  Short of that i don't see how pushing bohner out is a victory.  

 

McConnell not going with reconciliation or suspending the filibuster rule was the problem.  I think that a VICTORY would have been one of the candidates (specifically the three senators) selling the reallocation of funds to other care providers and then compelling the senate to act and leaving a bill on the Presidents desk.  I think this just makes us look splintered and now we are going to have a protracted battle over speaker that will probably result in McCarthy being the speaker anyway.  

---

No.  You don't get it and I am not really surprised.  I'll give you a very elementary example.

 

An "establishment politician" is one that say runs on not raising taxes on widgets no matter what.  However, his party makes a "deal" with the other party that he will back a tax hike on widgets in exchange for something else.  He's not fulfilling his promise to the people that voted for him based on his promise not to raise taxes on widgets.  He's doing what is politically necessary to get and/or retain power.

 

This happens on both sides of the aisle, and if people think otherwise than they surely are in the dark.

 

Regarding a career politician.  That's one that gets elected to office, doesn't reflect or vote for their constituency, yet does everything they can to stay in office.  Again, this happens on both sides.  Take a look at this list and sort it by length of their term.  Just a couple of notable people on that list, Nancy Pelosi (d) has been a representative for 47 years, 68 days.  John Boehner ® the subject of this thread has been in congress for 41 years, 47 days.

 

I suspect that both examples that I gave have probably been in congress longer than you have been alive.  Do you think that being at a job for over 47 years is a career?

 

You are not reading that list correctly. You are looking at the age of the person when they were inaugurated. Boehner has been in office since 1991, when he was 41 years old. He has not been in Congress for 41 years.

---

You are not reading that list correctly. You are looking at the age of the person when they were inaugurated. Boehner has been in office since 1991, when he was 41 years old. He has not been in Congress for 41 years.

 

So only 24 years then.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You are not reading that list correctly. You are looking at the age of the person when they were inaugurated. Boehner has been in office since 1991, when he was 41 years old. He has not been in Congress for 41 years.

 

Good catch.  I stand corrected and fixed my original post.  I copy/pasted from the wrong column.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Kevin McCarthy may take his spot.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...w-speaker/

 

Replace one dingus with another.

 

Won't be McCarthy. I guessing his Hillary/Benghazi gaffe did not help.

---

;

;

Won't be McCarthy. I guessing his Hillary/Benghazi gaffe did not help.

 

I'm sure it didn't help.

 

Back to the drawing board to try and find someone who will ensure the car goes over the cliff. 

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.