Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

Obama had Congress around his pinky from 2008 to 2010.

Sort of. Every 20 seconds the Republicans threatened to fillibuster anything he touched... just because. He tried playing nice, and thats how we ended up with the compromise shitshow of the ACA instead of forcefully using that majority to forge a more comprehensive and lasting reform.

Post 2010, GOP took Congress and Obama would rather drink cyanide than work with the heathens...

You mean...the people who openly and clearly stated they would not work with Obama and that their #1 legislative goal was to unseat him in 2012 before he could so much as move into the White House?

Obama can be blamed for many things, and rightfully so, but the problems with Obama and congress not working together lie with Congress, not the Executive branch in this case.

I mean...when did the GOP ever givr him a real chance? These are the same people who blamed Obama for allowing them to override his veto...

 whembly wrote:


Post 2010, GOP took Congress and Obama would rather drink cyanide than work with the heathens...

You genuinely believe this, don't you? Fascinating.

You know this whole repeal the 19th idea fits well with Republican ideas. One of their constant tactics has been trying to take away peoples' ability to vote.

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Post 2010, GOP took Congress and Obama would rather drink cyanide than work with the heathens...

You genuinely believe this, don't you? Fascinating.

Sure... Obama was never interested in compromises.

Neither Congresscritters as well...

Mexican Standoff yo...

The bad thing about this is that end of the fiscal year crap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
You know this whole repeal the 19th idea fits well with Republican ideas. One of their constant tactics has been trying to take away peoples' ability to vote.

:rolls eye:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Obama had Congress around his pinky from 2008 to 2010.

Sort of. Every 20 seconds the Republicans threatened to fillibuster anything he touched... just because. He tried playing nice, and thats how we ended up with the compromise shitshow of the ACA instead of forcefully using that majority to forge a more comprehensive and lasting reform.

The ACA wasn't a fething compromise.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi made it clear that they didnt' want any GOPer's help.

The compromise was within the Democratic Party as enough Dems refused to support single-payer and the likes.

Post 2010, GOP took Congress and Obama would rather drink cyanide than work with the heathens...

You mean...the people who openly and clearly stated they would not work with Obama and that their #1 legislative goal was to unseat him in 2012 before he could so much as move into the White House?

Yeah... that's how opposing parties treat their electoral opponent. Don't act like this is a new thing.

Obama can be blamed for many things, and rightfully so, but the problems with Obama and congress not working together lie with Congress, not the Executive branch in this case.

I mean...when did the GOP ever givr him a real chance? These are the same people who blamed Obama for allowing them to override his veto...

The blame lands on BOTH.

 skyth wrote:
You know this whole repeal the 19th idea fits well with Republican ideas. One of their constant tactics has been trying to take away peoples' ability to vote.

and goes along with their mission statement to take this country backwards to when it was great.

obviously they mean before women could vote, before blacks could vote, those great old days.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Reminds me of the whole "If only people who payed taxes voted" thing.

But then Trump couldn't vote. And ofc, if you're not eligible to vote it would be reasonable to bar you running for office too. :-)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:
You know this whole repeal the 19th idea fits well with Republican ideas. One of their constant tactics has been trying to take away peoples' ability to vote.

:rolls eye:

To be fair both parties seem to do some of this - have you never wondered how some of the voting districts are set up? The guys working on it cut up the maps so they'll get as many districts as possible with a majority for their party even if, say, only the city center would vote for party A. Creative map borders can make a five-district city go 4/5 for one party even if less than half the people support that party.

And ofc there's the actions against voting fraud often driven by Republicans that incidentally also means poor people that would vote Democrat have to get somewhat expensive ID cards and so on.

 whembly wrote:

The ACA wasn't a fething compromise.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi made it clear that they didnt' want any GOPer's help.

After the GOP made it clear they werent interested in talking about it one bit.

The compromise was within the Democratic Party as enough Dems refused to support single-payer and the likes.

In some respects yes, but it was also made clear the the GOP would fillibuster anything even touching on the idea.

Post 2010, GOP took Congress and Obama would rather drink cyanide than work with the heathens...

You mean...the people who openly and clearly stated they would not work with Obama and that their #1 legislative goal was to unseat him in 2012 before he could so much as move into the White House?

Yeah... that's how opposing parties treat their electoral opponent. Don't act like this is a new thing.

I'm not treating it like it is a new thing, however the level of GOP refusal to engage on anything but the most hostile of terms is pretty new, at least for my lifetime.

That opposing political parties often disagree is not new. The minute 1 refusal to engage with Obama on anything without Obama having to totally capitulate to the Tea Party bandwagon demands very much was new. I cannot recall the Democrats refusing to work with Bush or Reagan in the same way on anything near the same level across the entire board the way the GOP did with Obama from literally minute 1. The level and intensity of partisanship in the part of the GOP exploded. Thats not a controversial statement.

The blame lands on BOTH

Even if we accept this as true, the blame in this case is an order of magnitude greater on one side than the other. Obama tried to play nice at the outset and it almost cost him his signature campaign promise. The GOP never had any intention of trying to work with him, and they didnt. Again, theres plenty of stuff to blame on Obama, he has certainly had his share of mistakes and kerfluffles, but to declare both sides anything near equally guilty here is absurd.

Please do show me that "Obama played nice on the onset"...

I'll wait.

 whembly wrote:
Please do show me that "Obama played nice on the onset"...

I'll wait.

And if he didn't? The GOP still said that their #1 goal was to make Obama a one-year president. Which is absolutely not their job, and wound up to be the exact opposite of their jobs. But go on and support that, it's how you got Trump so surely its uphill from here?

 whembly wrote:
Please do show me that "Obama played nice on the onset"...

I'll wait.

Here you go

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/

And i thought the whole fanboy thing was only on the interwebs, it should not be in politics, how has it become to this childish behavior? It is like two kids playing in a sandbox rather destroy the toy than share it.

Filling out my ballot early and mailing it off tomorrow. I want to be able to vote against Trump before he drops out

 d-usa wrote:
Filling out my ballot early and mailing it off tomorrow. I want to be able to vote against Trump before he drops out

That egomaniac dropping out voluntarily? Never. I'm not even sure if it's possible/legal for the RNC to remove him this late in the game. the ballots went out and people have already started voting. He'll stick it out, thinking he's winning, he'll lose because he's a loser, then throw the biggest temper tantrum the world has ever seen. Big enough that most 3 year olds would go "Damn, he's really childish"

If he did drop out, it would be a first in american history, and the RNC would destroy itself with the infighting trying to put a new name on the ballot in such a short period of time.

Oh man I have waited a year for this temper tantrum, knowing the longer I had to wait the more epic it would be. I am honestly excited to see it as the crown achievement of Republican obstructionist policy. I don't dislike the GOP inherently however I have nothing but scorn for the party's behavior in regards to compromise and doing their fething jobs. The sheer karmic justice of what has happened here is really sinking in.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Filling out my ballot early and mailing it off tomorrow. I want to be able to vote against Trump before he drops out

That egomaniac dropping out voluntarily? Never. I'm not even sure if it's possible/legal for the RNC to remove him this late in the game. the ballots went out and people have already started voting. He'll stick it out, thinking he's winning, he'll lose because he's a loser, then throw the biggest temper tantrum the world has ever seen. Big enough that most 3 year olds would go "Damn, he's really childish"

If he did drop out, it would be a first in american history, and the RNC would destroy itself with the infighting trying to put a new name on the ballot in such a short period of time.

I talked to my brother about this since he send out his ballot a couple weeks ago (he currently lives in Germany).

The way the ballot reads is that for the Presidential race you vote for the following:

Electors for President and Vice President: For (Candidate): For Electors (names of all the electors).

So even though the ballot has the different candidates, I am actually not voting for Gary Johnson; I'm voting for Erin Adams, Mikel Dillon, Joel Britt Dixon, Rex L Lawhorn, Ephriam Zachary Knight, Craig A. Dakwins, and Mark C. DeShazo, who said that they would vote for Gary Johnson.

So I would be curious how it would play out in the courts (at least in Oklahoma) since even if Trump were to drop out, the 7 electors that are on the ballot could still get elected and vote for whoever they want.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Please do show me that "Obama played nice on the onset"...

I'll wait.

And if he didn't? The GOP still said that their #1 goal was to make Obama a one-year president. Which is absolutely not their job, and wound up to be the exact opposite of their jobs. But go on and support that, it's how you got Trump so surely its uphill from here?

One term president, not 1 year President.

And, yes, it *is* absolutely their job to rein in an Executive Branch held by the opposing party.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Please do show me that "Obama played nice on the onset"...

I'll wait.

Here you go

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/

BS article from an uber lefty site.



Just google-fu Bob Woodward (washington post) regarding how Pelosi and Reid "handled" Obama during the drafting of the ACA.

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Please do show me that "Obama played nice on the onset"...

I'll wait.

And if he didn't? The GOP still said that their #1 goal was to make Obama a one-year president. Which is absolutely not their job, and wound up to be the exact opposite of their jobs. But go on and support that, it's how you got Trump so surely its uphill from here?

One term president, not 1 year President.

And, yes, it *is* absolutely their job to rein in an Executive Branch held by the opposing party.

Somebody cut out the "work with the executive branch if is held by someone from the same party as the legislative branch, refuse to legislate effectively if it is held by someone from the opposite party" section out of my copy of the constitution.

Damn kids.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Please do show me that "Obama played nice on the onset"...

I'll wait.

And if he didn't? The GOP still said that their #1 goal was to make Obama a one-year president. Which is absolutely not their job, and wound up to be the exact opposite of their jobs. But go on and support that, it's how you got Trump so surely its uphill from here?

One term president, not 1 year President.

And, yes, it *is* absolutely their job to rein in an Executive Branch held by the opposing party.

Somebody cut out the "work with the executive branch if is held by someone from the same party as the legislative branch, refuse to legislate effectively if it is held by someone from the opposite party" section out of my copy of the constitution.

Damn kids.

Kids... kids...

Please point out in the Constitution that Congress must rubber stamp everything that the President demands.

Please point out where anybody claimed that they must.

 d-usa wrote:
Please point out where anybody claimed that they must.

Well then...

If you abide by the idea that Congress is a co-equal branch to the Executive... then, it stands to reason that both parties need to work together.

Otherwise...

Mexican Standoff.

1. That's not what you said.
2. That's not what the GOP said.
3. That's not what happened.

 d-usa wrote:
1. That's not what you said.
2. That's not what the GOP said.
3. That's not what happened.

1) re-read what I typed
2) what did they say? I mean, Obama fething had the whole government from 2008 to 2010. If you're referring to the mid-term in 2010, when GOP took over... yeah, THEY WERE ELECTED TO STOP OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS POLICES.
3) what didn't happen??

1-term is indeed what I meant, derpy typo...

But yeah, no. The GOP was obstructionist right from the beginning and an effective media campaign has allowed them to convince people that is somehow them doing their jobs. Congress is supposed to negotiate and write legislation, not demand 'my way or the highway' and filibuster anything that comes from the other side just because it came from the other side. But here I am arguing with silly 'logic' and 'reality' against Whembly when there is abundant evidence to how much of a lost cause that is. Oh well, enjoy your presidential candidate!

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Please do show me that "Obama played nice on the onset"...

I'll wait.

And if he didn't? The GOP still said that their #1 goal was to make Obama a one-year president. Which is absolutely not their job, and wound up to be the exact opposite of their jobs. But go on and support that, it's how you got Trump so surely its uphill from here?

One term president, not 1 year President.

And, yes, it *is* absolutely their job to rein in an Executive Branch held by the opposing party.

Not on everything they touch from day 1. That's called obstructionism for its own sake. That is neither loyal opposition nor is it "reining in" anything. Their job is not to just automatically oppose anything from the other side for its own sake.

Please do show me that "Obama played nice on the onset"...

I'll wait.

I'd counter with, where did he go out of his way to screw the Republicans, particularly just for its own sake (they way the Republicans did to him), especially before they'd already started in on him?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
1. That's not what you said.
2. That's not what the GOP said.
3. That's not what happened.

1) re-read what I typed
2) what did they say? I mean, Obama fething had the whole government from 2008 to 2010. If you're referring to the mid-term in 2010, when GOP took over... yeah, THEY WERE ELECTED TO STOP OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS POLICES.
3) what didn't happen??

1) What you typed:

whembly wrote:Yeah... that's how opposing parties treat their electoral opponent.

whembly wrote:And, yes, it *is* absolutely their job to rein in an Executive Branch held by the opposing party.

whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
By put a brake on you mean continue to oppose anything and everything just because, which is the exact kind of attitude that lead to the rise of Trump to becoming the nominee of your party.

Well if she puts out crap like Obama... yeah.

2) What they said:

Mitch McConnell wrote:The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Biden wrote:“I spoke to seven different Republican Senators, who said, `Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ he recalls. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was: `For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’”

John Boehner wrote:“We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

Jerry Lewis wrote:I’m sorry, but leadership tells us we can’t play

3) Parties working together.

 whembly wrote:
Please do show me that "Obama played nice on the onset"...

I'll wait.

We'd be some pretty stupid donkey-caves to do so, since it's been done numerous times before and you shrug it off. Sorry Lucy, find some other idiot to run at the football.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Please do show me that "Obama played nice on the onset"...

I'll wait.

We'd be some pretty stupid donkey-caves to do so, since it's been done numerous times before and you shrug it off. Sorry Lucy, find some other idiot to run at the football.

That's very obstructionist of you!

#YoureBothBad

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
1. That's not what you said.
2. That's not what the GOP said.
3. That's not what happened.

1) re-read what I typed
2) what did they say? I mean, Obama fething had the whole government from 2008 to 2010. If you're referring to the mid-term in 2010, when GOP took over... yeah, THEY WERE ELECTED TO STOP OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS POLICES.
3) what didn't happen??

1) What you typed:

whembly wrote:Yeah... that's how opposing parties treat their electoral opponent.

whembly wrote:And, yes, it *is* absolutely their job to rein in an Executive Branch held by the opposing party.

whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
By put a brake on you mean continue to oppose anything and everything just because, which is the exact kind of attitude that lead to the rise of Trump to becoming the nominee of your party.

Well if she puts out crap like Obama... yeah.

2) What they said:

Mitch McConnell wrote:The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Biden wrote:“I spoke to seven different Republican Senators, who said, `Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ he recalls. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was: `For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’”

John Boehner wrote:“We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

Jerry Lewis wrote:I’m sorry, but leadership tells us we can’t play

3) Parties working together.

Oh? And that detrimentally impacted the Republicans?

The 2010 midterm says otherwise.

Frankly, the GOP knew what the Democrats/Obama were trying to do, and their constituents didn't want it.

SO... it's more than "obstructionism for obstructionism sake".

I think that's your third position on obstructionism and the GOP in the last 12 hours.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Please do show me that "Obama played nice on the onset"...

I'll wait.

We'd be some pretty stupid donkey-caves to do so, since it's been done numerous times before and you shrug it off. Sorry Lucy, find some other idiot to run at the football.

Hey... "playing hardball" is somehow bad.

Maybe the Democrats ought to dangle a carrot to the GOP to play ball.

Nah... it's much better for the Ds to label how obstructionist the GOP are...

I mean, the D's reaction to the 'gahzi hearings and any other Senate hearings... the Ds obstructed EVERY. DAMN. STEP. OF. THE. WAY.

So, climb down from that high horse boyo and realize that politics is more often a "bare knuckle fight" than "smoozing in backrooms with congac and cigars negotions".