|
|
On October 19 2012 06:36 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:33 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:24 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 06:03 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 05:01 Souma wrote:
How have the last 4 years been on an entirely different level? I am sincerely curious because I remember Republicans obstructing Clinton and Democrats obstructing Bush and I don't really see much difference between those eras and what we're seeing now. What exactly is it that makes you say this Republican congress is so different? On October 02 2012 22:09 Souma wrote:On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush. Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9EY57.png) Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!). To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations. Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close. Is this the only data that you're relying on? Because it doesn't seem very compelling to me. For instance, there is a lot of red in the chart during the last few years of the Bush presidency. Would that show that the republican minority in the senate was obstructing George Bush? Presumably not. So how do you go from a lot of filibusters in the senate to infer that the minority party is obstructing Obama today?
Further, the real criticism that I've heard is that it's the republican majority in the house that's been allegedly obstructing the president's agenda. But there is no filibuster in the house. Using a chart about filibusters in the senate to attack republicans in the house is misguided; you seem to be using this chart to prove something that it really doesn't have much to do with.
The other argument of course is that the republicans are resisting Obama because his policies are much more extreme and divisive than were the policies of Bush or Clinton. Thus the fact that there is more resistance to those policies shouldn't surprise anyone. Of course this is hard to establish objectively but I think it's reasonable to argue that Obama set the tone for his presidency with his massive stimulus bill and then Obamacare which were both purely partisan bills in which no effort was made to get any bipartisan buy-in.
Edit: quotes got screwed up If this isn't compelling evidence I don't know what is. You don't seem to understand how the American legislature works so let me brief you on it. The argument is that the Republicans are obstructing both Obama and all Democratic legislation (which is what you saw during the last two years of the Bush presidency). Policies are drafted in a committee then introduced through the House then the Senate. So if Obama has a policy he wants to introduce he first has to get it approved by the House (tough luck). If it passes the House then the Senate has to approve it, which is hard because of the filibusters. And yet, you still close your eyes to the one undeniable proof of Republican obstructionism: the federal judicial confirmations. It's nothing short of petty. So just to sum up, you claim that the Republican party has been more obstructionist of Obama in the last 4 years than any other party in modern history. Your evidence to support this is (i) that filibusters by the minority republicans are slightly higher under Obama then they were under Bush; and (ii) judicial appointments in the senate are taking longer. Interesting. Not slightly higher, two times higher than the previous minority-Democratic Senate. Minority Republicans in the Senate are not only obstructing Obama, they are being obstructive of all Democratic legislation. Do you still not understand how our legislature works? And not just longer, five times longer.
Just because they're taking it to another level doesn't mean they are the sole offenders. This obstructionism is comparable to an escalating prank war. You have to keep one-upping the prior minority party. It builds resentment and is bad for our future.
|
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed, even if they would get many things they want in return. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 19 2012 06:39 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:36 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 06:33 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:24 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 06:03 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 05:01 Souma wrote:
How have the last 4 years been on an entirely different level? I am sincerely curious because I remember Republicans obstructing Clinton and Democrats obstructing Bush and I don't really see much difference between those eras and what we're seeing now. What exactly is it that makes you say this Republican congress is so different? On October 02 2012 22:09 Souma wrote:On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush. Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR. Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!). To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations. Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close. Is this the only data that you're relying on? Because it doesn't seem very compelling to me. For instance, there is a lot of red in the chart during the last few years of the Bush presidency. Would that show that the republican minority in the senate was obstructing George Bush? Presumably not. So how do you go from a lot of filibusters in the senate to infer that the minority party is obstructing Obama today?
Further, the real criticism that I've heard is that it's the republican majority in the house that's been allegedly obstructing the president's agenda. But there is no filibuster in the house. Using a chart about filibusters in the senate to attack republicans in the house is misguided; you seem to be using this chart to prove something that it really doesn't have much to do with.
The other argument of course is that the republicans are resisting Obama because his policies are much more extreme and divisive than were the policies of Bush or Clinton. Thus the fact that there is more resistance to those policies shouldn't surprise anyone. Of course this is hard to establish objectively but I think it's reasonable to argue that Obama set the tone for his presidency with his massive stimulus bill and then Obamacare which were both purely partisan bills in which no effort was made to get any bipartisan buy-in.
Edit: quotes got screwed up If this isn't compelling evidence I don't know what is. You don't seem to understand how the American legislature works so let me brief you on it. The argument is that the Republicans are obstructing both Obama and all Democratic legislation (which is what you saw during the last two years of the Bush presidency). Policies are drafted in a committee then introduced through the House then the Senate. So if Obama has a policy he wants to introduce he first has to get it approved by the House (tough luck). If it passes the House then the Senate has to approve it, which is hard because of the filibusters. And yet, you still close your eyes to the one undeniable proof of Republican obstructionism: the federal judicial confirmations. It's nothing short of petty. So just to sum up, you claim that the Republican party has been more obstructionist of Obama in the last 4 years than any other party in modern history. Your evidence to support this is (i) that filibusters by the minority republicans are slightly higher under Obama then they were under Bush; and (ii) judicial appointments in the senate are taking longer. Interesting. Not slightly higher, two times higher than the previous minority-Democratic Senate. Minority Republicans in the Senate are not only obstructing Obama, they are being obstructive of all Democratic legislation. Do you still not understand how our legislature works? And not just longer, five times longer. Just because they're taking it to another level doesn't mean they are the sole offenders. This obstructionism is comparable to an escalating prank war. You have to keep one-upping the prior minority party. It builds resentment and is bad for our future.
This is not an argument. Just because I punch you in the face it does not justify you shooting me in the head. It's disgusting how you can even compare this to being a prank of all things. The judiciary is not a joke. Our judges are overworked, tons of litigation is behind held up, and for what? So Republicans can JOKE AROUND? Get over yourself.
Clinton and Bush both had their judicial confirmations dealt with swiftly on average, and so did every president before Obama. What's different now? Republicans.
|
Why are people defending the obstructionism???
Congress has like a 10% approval rating. Are you seriously part of that small percentage???
On October 19 2012 06:37 Kimaker wrote:
As far as filibustering is concerned, it makes sense, given the ideological stand points of the two parties, that Republicans would use it more often. They are the more Conservative party, the Democrats are more Progressive, so of course Republicans are going to attempts to maintain status quo a disproportionate amount.
Don't see how that's intrinsically bad if you strip away any feelings you have over the actual policies.
One ideology is activist, the other is reactionary to activism.
???? Democrats have filibustered Republicans. It's not like filibustering is what only one party does. Otherwise there would be a push to end the filibuster once and for all.
What we're discussing is how this particular congress is filibustering like there's no tomorrow. It's about scale.
|
On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party.
I didn't think the argument is whether or not they're being obstructionists. Anyone with a brain can see that they are.
The debate I was having was regarding whether Democrats were innocent in it. Another person was saying that the obstructionism was good (I disagree).
|
On October 19 2012 06:24 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:17 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 19 2012 05:57 cLAN.Anax wrote:On October 19 2012 05:50 white_horse wrote:
I don't understand how republicans rage so much about obama and his deficits. They have a terrible record when it comes to budget responsibility. Every republican president in the past 30 years blew up the total debt and the only recent time when the yearly deficit was ever balanced was when clinton, a democrat, did it in his second term.
Also, a significant part of the federal deficit in the past 4 years is due to tax break extensions (including the bush tax cuts) for middle income families as well as lower tax receipts because of the recession. The deficit didn't just happen because obama went around throwing money at every single government agency :O Republicans rage at Obama only; fiscal conservatives rage at both parties.... On October 19 2012 05:53 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 19 2012 05:47 kmillz wrote:On October 19 2012 05:45 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 19 2012 05:33 kmillz wrote:On October 19 2012 04:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On October 19 2012 04:37 Zaqwert wrote:
Obama has had 4 years in office and his entire campaign and all his supporters have to offer at this point are binder, Big Bird, trying to scare women into voting for them on the basis of manufactured fake controversy, and standard class warfare (OMG the evilz rich!).
In 2008 you didn't hear any of that, it was all just this wishy washy "hope and change" I'm the black Messiash, give me a peace prize for showing up, etc.
In 2008 Obama was asking people to vote FOR him, which a lot of people did because he was nothing but a rorschach blot, people saw what they wanted to see).
His entire 2012 campaign is basically "Romney sucks, vote against him" which says a lot about his failed administration.
The media has been in the tank for Obama since day 1 and is going nuts right now. You go to CNN and the word "binders" appears on their front page TEN TIMES. There are 10 different "stories" trying to manufacture up a phony controversy.
Are the liberals so bankrupt on ideas and embarassed by the failure of Obama that's all they have at this point?
Obama may still win this thing, heck he's probably stil the favorite based on how the electoral college look, but you people supporting him are a disgrace.
Don't get me a wrong, Romney isn't that great, but you people are so obsessed with your Obamessiah.
It's not that suprising though, the vast majority TL is either young people who know nothing about how the world works and are duped into voting for what they think are hand outs (I'm all of 28 btw) or foreigners outside the US who are typically much further left than your average American and have been brainwashed their whole lives into thinking "Oh Americans who are Republicans? They are evil!" Your press is even more corrupt than the United States.
Thank God for the internet though, people still form their own little echo chambers where they convince themselves their world view is the only one, but the media's stranglehold on information has been crushed. Just today Newsweek announced they are basically dying.
Sorry for the long rambling stream of rants. I'm a very frustrated libertarian who views the world going to shit because everyone wants a handout.
Kids want free college, women think they deserve more money just for being women (the gender pay gap is a total myth btw), free health care, guaranteed jobs, etc.
Romney was wrong about 47% of people being parasites, the actual number is way higher.
When a host gets enough parasites it dies. America is f'ing bankrupt, we are playing shell games with fake numbers at this point, we are Enron.
The problem isn't taxes, it's spending. Romeny will spend a ton of money, Obama will spent a ton more, it's a sad situation we are in. Complains about how the internet users have their own little unchangeable world view .... Perpetrates stereotype like a boss without hesitation. Solid post. Yeah, almost as solid as: I feel like this thread is similar to the debates. The democrats or "liberals" present statistics and data or rather "arithmetic" and the republican users go "Nope, doesn'tt work that way! Didn't you hear romney or any of his studiesszzz, they say it works!". Democrats ask how and the republicans reply "Well he said it! he wouldn't lie!" What deductions the dems press "well durrr Obama is horrible look at his last 4 years!" and then the cycle continues of dodging any financial debate on Romneys currently flimsy at best plan. "derrrr Obama HAS a tax plan even though it will bankrupt us at least he has one!!" I apologize but doesn't every graph show America coming out of the recession? In fact the only argument used by REP's on how Obama has acted is "to slow" but they don't argue that America is coming out, they just think they can do it quicker. If Republicans think they can do it better, why not fucking say the plan? Who in the hell would vote for an imaginary plan where the creator won't explain the details over a plan that is actually getting America out of debt... Imagine walking over to an investors office and saying "this is what I'll do, you can't know how I'l get there give me this much money!" ... That is the sum of Romney's campaign. Because I dislike Obama's policies more than I like Romney's (or lack-there-of). That is some ideology. "Well this guy got us out, but it's been going kinda slow and so... I think I'll take the guy who plans to put more money into military and cut everything but not explain how!" You think Obama got us out of the economic mess? We were heading out of the worst of it just fine around the end of '08, if you ask me.... Fine at the end of 08... Some people have absolutely no comprehension of how recessions work and it's scary. He didn't say we were fine at the end of 08, he said we were heading out of the worst of the recession. Technically speaking, the recession ended June 2009, so the worst of it probably was around the end of 08.
Yeah, we weren't in the clear, but things were looking up. We were getting out of it at least.
+ Show Spoiler +Take a gander at the link I hid in my previous post if you're interested. Here's the applicable snippet from it. The financial collapse was four months in the past when Barack Obama took the oath of office, and its immediate aftershocks had been addressed with the October 3, 2008, TARP stabilization protocols. Obama’s chorus simply blamed the entire panic on George Bush; and the idea that government guarantees from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — which the Democrats had backed — had ensured huge loans for the unqualified to buy homes at inflated prices was mostly ignored. The recession was finishing its second year and would end five months into the Obama administration, in June 2009. The stock market had mostly stopped falling before Obama took office. In other words, Obama entered office with all the blame for the bad economy going to his predecessor and with the end of the deep recession in sight.
|
On October 19 2012 06:43 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party. I didn't think the argument is whether or not they're being obstructionists. Anyone with a brain can see that they are. The debate I was having was regarding whether Democrats were innocent in it. Another person was saying that the obstructionism was good (I disagree).
Haha. Yes, actually we were arguing whether they were obstructionist...
|
On October 19 2012 06:47 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:43 BluePanther wrote:On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party. I didn't think the argument is whether or not they're being obstructionists. Anyone with a brain can see that they are. The debate I was having was regarding whether Democrats were innocent in it. Another person was saying that the obstructionism was good (I disagree). Haha. Yes, actually we were arguing whether they were obstructionist...
Well I wasn't. If someone is claiming that, they're wrong.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
They can make all the excuses they want, nothing will excuse Republicans from holding up the judicial process. Nothing.
Well, unless if they made the argument that all of the judges Obama wanted to appoint were spawns of Obama himself. That would be interesting.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 19 2012 06:50 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:47 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 06:43 BluePanther wrote:On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party. I didn't think the argument is whether or not they're being obstructionists. Anyone with a brain can see that they are. The debate I was having was regarding whether Democrats were innocent in it. Another person was saying that the obstructionism was good (I disagree). Haha. Yes, actually we were arguing whether they were obstructionist... Well I wasn't. If someone is claiming that, they're wrong.
this is what i'll say the next time i use the "but they did it too!" argument.
|
I'm surprised people are defending the republican congress now, most conservatives stance in this thread before was Congress and Obama suck, and it's Obamas fault he can't do anything with the sucky congress.
Also I took Zaqwert's post personally offensive, and all of you should too. Calling TL a bunch of uninformed, who are obsessed with Obamessiah?? Really? Saying that more than 47% are moochers? Please go out in to the real world, and out of your house/gated community/whatever you have been trapped in for the last 28 years. I know people that are part of that 47% and so do you, I posted a long post about this the other day, your comment makes me sick, literally. your post is the biggest pile of bullshit I've laid my eyes on in awhile, and I hope for your sake your a troll.
|
On October 19 2012 06:50 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:47 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 06:43 BluePanther wrote:On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party. I didn't think the argument is whether or not they're being obstructionists. Anyone with a brain can see that they are. The debate I was having was regarding whether Democrats were innocent in it. Another person was saying that the obstructionism was good (I disagree). Haha. Yes, actually we were arguing whether they were obstructionist... Well I wasn't. If someone is claiming that, they're wrong.
That might have been me? I suggested that Republicans were stiff-arming bills proposed by the Democrats because they didn't agree with the policies and thought they would do more harm than good if they chose to be bipartisan and go along with the legislature. Obstructionist, yes. But not exactly in the almost conspiratorial sense as proposed by McConnell's quote, although I understand the argument for it. (sorry, I can't think of a better phrase other than "almost conspiratorial" at the moment; no offense, guys...)
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 19 2012 07:01 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:50 BluePanther wrote:On October 19 2012 06:47 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 06:43 BluePanther wrote:On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party. I didn't think the argument is whether or not they're being obstructionists. Anyone with a brain can see that they are. The debate I was having was regarding whether Democrats were innocent in it. Another person was saying that the obstructionism was good (I disagree). Haha. Yes, actually we were arguing whether they were obstructionist... Well I wasn't. If someone is claiming that, they're wrong. That might have been me? I suggested that Republicans were stiff-arming bills proposed by the Democrats because they didn't agree with the policies and thought they would do more harm than good if they chose to be bipartisan and go along with the legislature. Obstructionist, yes. But not exactly in the almost conspiratorial sense as proposed by McConnell's quote, although I understand the argument for it. (sorry, I can't think of a better phrase other than "almost conspiratorial" at the moment; no offense, guys...)
Judicial. confirmations.
That shall be my response to anyone who tries to defend Republican obstructionism until they argue that Obama's nominees were Noam Chomsky incarnate.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the whole congress thing was brought up because it's alleged that obama had a majority for 2 years and didn't carry forth any policy thus he was fail.
it doesn't matter if democrats did it too. the point was the existence of this particular congress's good faith cooperation with the administration and how that places the blame of not getting anything done.
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/30/romneys-budget-would-require-a-40-cut-to-everything-but-medicare-social-security-and-defense/
I've posted this several times in the thread. I feel its telling, given how the argument I'm seeing here in the last few pages is: Romney may not have a plan, but its better than Obama's, which is guaranteed failure.
This 'plan' is a complete fantasy. It's not a question of 'freak chance is better than no chance'. It's guaranteed to either raise taxes, which conservative supporters feel is crucial to economic growth, or its going completely gut almost every single federally funded program. This budget analysis doesn't even take into account the increase in military spending that Romney has promised.
Here is the economists evaluation of Obama's economic record: http://www.economist.com/node/21561909
If you care about the economy so much, why the fuck would you entrust it to somebody who has not even attempted to formulate a plan to rebuild it. He's running for president. It's his job. He hasn't done shit.
|
On October 19 2012 06:35 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:33 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:24 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 06:03 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 05:01 Souma wrote:
How have the last 4 years been on an entirely different level? I am sincerely curious because I remember Republicans obstructing Clinton and Democrats obstructing Bush and I don't really see much difference between those eras and what we're seeing now. What exactly is it that makes you say this Republican congress is so different? On October 02 2012 22:09 Souma wrote:On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush. Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR. Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!). To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations. Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close. Is this the only data that you're relying on? Because it doesn't seem very compelling to me. For instance, there is a lot of red in the chart during the last few years of the Bush presidency. Would that show that the republican minority in the senate was obstructing George Bush? Presumably not. So how do you go from a lot of filibusters in the senate to infer that the minority party is obstructing Obama today?
Further, the real criticism that I've heard is that it's the republican majority in the house that's been allegedly obstructing the president's agenda. But there is no filibuster in the house. Using a chart about filibusters in the senate to attack republicans in the house is misguided; you seem to be using this chart to prove something that it really doesn't have much to do with.
The other argument of course is that the republicans are resisting Obama because his policies are much more extreme and divisive than were the policies of Bush or Clinton. Thus the fact that there is more resistance to those policies shouldn't surprise anyone. Of course this is hard to establish objectively but I think it's reasonable to argue that Obama set the tone for his presidency with his massive stimulus bill and then Obamacare which were both purely partisan bills in which no effort was made to get any bipartisan buy-in.
Edit: quotes got screwed up If this isn't compelling evidence I don't know what is. You don't seem to understand how the American legislature works so let me brief you on it. The argument is that the Republicans are obstructing both Obama and all Democratic legislation (which is what you saw during the last two years of the Bush presidency). Policies are drafted in a committee then introduced through the House then the Senate. So if Obama has a policy he wants to introduce he first has to get it approved by the House (tough luck). If it passes the House then the Senate has to approve it, which is hard because of the filibusters. And yet, you still close your eyes to the one undeniable proof of Republican obstructionism: the federal judicial confirmations. It's nothing short of petty. So just to sum up, you claim that the Republican party has been more obstructionist of Obama in the last 4 years than any other party in modern history. Your evidence to support this is (i) that filibusters by the minority republicans are slightly higher under Obama then they were under Bush; and (ii) judicial appointments in the senate are taking longer. Interesting. No. That is not his claim. Hell, the republicans themselves admitted obstructionism. They openly said that their number one goal was to prevent Obama from getting re-elected. I have no idea why you are defending them.
It's not exactly news that they don't want obama re-elected. The question in my mind is whether they are doing anything significantly different from what every opposition party does. It seems to me that this is a matter of opinion, but Souma's provided this chart which he thinks proves it empirically. It doesn't, for reasons I've explained in my last few posts.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 19 2012 07:13 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:35 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 06:33 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:24 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 06:03 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 05:01 Souma wrote:
How have the last 4 years been on an entirely different level? I am sincerely curious because I remember Republicans obstructing Clinton and Democrats obstructing Bush and I don't really see much difference between those eras and what we're seeing now. What exactly is it that makes you say this Republican congress is so different? On October 02 2012 22:09 Souma wrote:On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush. Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR. Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!). To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations. Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close. Is this the only data that you're relying on? Because it doesn't seem very compelling to me. For instance, there is a lot of red in the chart during the last few years of the Bush presidency. Would that show that the republican minority in the senate was obstructing George Bush? Presumably not. So how do you go from a lot of filibusters in the senate to infer that the minority party is obstructing Obama today?
Further, the real criticism that I've heard is that it's the republican majority in the house that's been allegedly obstructing the president's agenda. But there is no filibuster in the house. Using a chart about filibusters in the senate to attack republicans in the house is misguided; you seem to be using this chart to prove something that it really doesn't have much to do with.
The other argument of course is that the republicans are resisting Obama because his policies are much more extreme and divisive than were the policies of Bush or Clinton. Thus the fact that there is more resistance to those policies shouldn't surprise anyone. Of course this is hard to establish objectively but I think it's reasonable to argue that Obama set the tone for his presidency with his massive stimulus bill and then Obamacare which were both purely partisan bills in which no effort was made to get any bipartisan buy-in.
Edit: quotes got screwed up If this isn't compelling evidence I don't know what is. You don't seem to understand how the American legislature works so let me brief you on it. The argument is that the Republicans are obstructing both Obama and all Democratic legislation (which is what you saw during the last two years of the Bush presidency). Policies are drafted in a committee then introduced through the House then the Senate. So if Obama has a policy he wants to introduce he first has to get it approved by the House (tough luck). If it passes the House then the Senate has to approve it, which is hard because of the filibusters. And yet, you still close your eyes to the one undeniable proof of Republican obstructionism: the federal judicial confirmations. It's nothing short of petty. So just to sum up, you claim that the Republican party has been more obstructionist of Obama in the last 4 years than any other party in modern history. Your evidence to support this is (i) that filibusters by the minority republicans are slightly higher under Obama then they were under Bush; and (ii) judicial appointments in the senate are taking longer. Interesting. No. That is not his claim. Hell, the republicans themselves admitted obstructionism. They openly said that their number one goal was to prevent Obama from getting re-elected. I have no idea why you are defending them. It's not exactly news that they don't want obama re-elected. The question in my mind is whether they are doing anything significantly different from what every opposition party does. It seems to me that this is a matter of opinion, but Souma's provided this chart which he thinks proves it empirically. It doesn't, for reasons I've explained in my last few posts.
Judicial. confirmations.
|
On October 19 2012 07:13 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:35 DoubleReed wrote:On October 19 2012 06:33 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:24 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 06:03 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 05:01 Souma wrote:
How have the last 4 years been on an entirely different level? I am sincerely curious because I remember Republicans obstructing Clinton and Democrats obstructing Bush and I don't really see much difference between those eras and what we're seeing now. What exactly is it that makes you say this Republican congress is so different? On October 02 2012 22:09 Souma wrote:On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush. Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR. Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!). To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations. Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close. Is this the only data that you're relying on? Because it doesn't seem very compelling to me. For instance, there is a lot of red in the chart during the last few years of the Bush presidency. Would that show that the republican minority in the senate was obstructing George Bush? Presumably not. So how do you go from a lot of filibusters in the senate to infer that the minority party is obstructing Obama today?
Further, the real criticism that I've heard is that it's the republican majority in the house that's been allegedly obstructing the president's agenda. But there is no filibuster in the house. Using a chart about filibusters in the senate to attack republicans in the house is misguided; you seem to be using this chart to prove something that it really doesn't have much to do with.
The other argument of course is that the republicans are resisting Obama because his policies are much more extreme and divisive than were the policies of Bush or Clinton. Thus the fact that there is more resistance to those policies shouldn't surprise anyone. Of course this is hard to establish objectively but I think it's reasonable to argue that Obama set the tone for his presidency with his massive stimulus bill and then Obamacare which were both purely partisan bills in which no effort was made to get any bipartisan buy-in.
Edit: quotes got screwed up If this isn't compelling evidence I don't know what is. You don't seem to understand how the American legislature works so let me brief you on it. The argument is that the Republicans are obstructing both Obama and all Democratic legislation (which is what you saw during the last two years of the Bush presidency). Policies are drafted in a committee then introduced through the House then the Senate. So if Obama has a policy he wants to introduce he first has to get it approved by the House (tough luck). If it passes the House then the Senate has to approve it, which is hard because of the filibusters. And yet, you still close your eyes to the one undeniable proof of Republican obstructionism: the federal judicial confirmations. It's nothing short of petty. So just to sum up, you claim that the Republican party has been more obstructionist of Obama in the last 4 years than any other party in modern history. Your evidence to support this is (i) that filibusters by the minority republicans are slightly higher under Obama then they were under Bush; and (ii) judicial appointments in the senate are taking longer. Interesting. No. That is not his claim. Hell, the republicans themselves admitted obstructionism. They openly said that their number one goal was to prevent Obama from getting re-elected. I have no idea why you are defending them. It's not exactly news that they don't want obama re-elected. The question in my mind is whether they are doing anything significantly different from what every opposition party does. It seems to me that this is a matter of opinion, but Souma's provided this chart which he thinks proves it empirically. It doesn't, for reasons I've explained in my last few posts.
Take that chart, combine it with the video clip declaring obstructionism as their #1 goal....
starts to make a compelling case.
|
On October 19 2012 06:36 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 06:33 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 06:24 Souma wrote:On October 19 2012 06:03 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 05:01 Souma wrote:
How have the last 4 years been on an entirely different level? I am sincerely curious because I remember Republicans obstructing Clinton and Democrats obstructing Bush and I don't really see much difference between those eras and what we're seeing now. What exactly is it that makes you say this Republican congress is so different? On October 02 2012 22:09 Souma wrote:On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote:
The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard. No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing. The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone? This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens. Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush. Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR. Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!). To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations. Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close. Is this the only data that you're relying on? Because it doesn't seem very compelling to me. For instance, there is a lot of red in the chart during the last few years of the Bush presidency. Would that show that the republican minority in the senate was obstructing George Bush? Presumably not. So how do you go from a lot of filibusters in the senate to infer that the minority party is obstructing Obama today?
Further, the real criticism that I've heard is that it's the republican majority in the house that's been allegedly obstructing the president's agenda. But there is no filibuster in the house. Using a chart about filibusters in the senate to attack republicans in the house is misguided; you seem to be using this chart to prove something that it really doesn't have much to do with.
The other argument of course is that the republicans are resisting Obama because his policies are much more extreme and divisive than were the policies of Bush or Clinton. Thus the fact that there is more resistance to those policies shouldn't surprise anyone. Of course this is hard to establish objectively but I think it's reasonable to argue that Obama set the tone for his presidency with his massive stimulus bill and then Obamacare which were both purely partisan bills in which no effort was made to get any bipartisan buy-in.
Edit: quotes got screwed up If this isn't compelling evidence I don't know what is. You don't seem to understand how the American legislature works so let me brief you on it. The argument is that the Republicans are obstructing both Obama and all Democratic legislation (which is what you saw during the last two years of the Bush presidency). Policies are drafted in a committee then introduced through the House then the Senate. So if Obama has a policy he wants to introduce he first has to get it approved by the House (tough luck). If it passes the House then the Senate has to approve it, which is hard because of the filibusters. And yet, you still close your eyes to the one undeniable proof of Republican obstructionism: the federal judicial confirmations. It's nothing short of petty. So just to sum up, you claim that the Republican party has been more obstructionist of Obama in the last 4 years than any other party in modern history. Your evidence to support this is (i) that filibusters by the minority republicans are slightly higher under Obama then they were under Bush; and (ii) judicial appointments in the senate are taking longer. Interesting. Not slightly higher, two times higher than the previous minority-Democratic Senate. Minority Republicans in the Senate are not only obstructing Obama, they are being obstructive of all Democratic legislation. Do you still not understand how our legislature works? And not just longer, five times longer. When you manage to piss off the judiciary and put a wrench into the judicial process, I say you're doing a fine job!
My point is that the metric you're using doesn't actually measure republican obstructionism at all. It doesn't matter if it's a million times higher because it's not measuring obstructionism! The reason we know this is that if it did it would show a high level of obstructionism by the republican minority in the senate while Bush was president, which obviously didn't exist. So whatever this chart shows, it does not show that senate minority republicans are obstructing Obama's policies, anymore than senate minority Republicans were obstructing Bush.
The judges thing is interesting. I'd be interested in seeing the actual data if you have a link.
Edit: clarity
|
On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed, even if they would get many things they want in return. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party.
I guess I just don't see how this is different from every other presidency. When Bush was president Democrats wanted him to be a one-term president too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
