Obama has broken the back of Republicans

[dank69]

The 2014 map is very favorable to Republicans. It is highly likely they will pick up at least a couple seats. (conversely, the 2016 map is extremely favorable to Democrats) The GOP will basically have to run the table in order to take control of the chamber however, and at the moment they are polling behind in a lot of races.

Senate pickups for the Republicans? Highly likely. Senate control for the Republicans? Not looking so good.

The same was said about 2012. I have faith in the GOP self-destruction continuing.

 

[fskimospy]

The same was said about 2012. I have faith in the GOP self-destruction continuing.

Well 2012 was a presidential election year; higher turnout helps Democrats. 2014 is an off year with a lot of Democratic seat defenses in states Mitt Romney won. If the Republicans continue with the insanity they have displayed recently it's always possible the Democrats could hold their seats, but pickups would be awfully hard.

If you look at the states in play for that election basically the only one I can think of where Democrats stand even an outside chance at a pickup is in Maine.

 

[Bird222]

The problem is that Americans have the memory of a 3 year old. Come election time the Republicans will have a non-stop stream of ads blaming the democrats for this whole mess and Democrats will have the same thing. Americans will not be able to sort through the mess, they'll throw their hands up in the air, and they will vote like they always did down party lines or for whoever promises to put more money in their pocket.

Sadly this. They'll forget by election time.

 

[FelixDeCat]

10-15-2018

Last week, Arizona lawmaker Rep. Brenda Barton (R-Payson) wrote on Facebook that "De Fuhrer" is running the federal government shutdown

Id say Obama is closer to Fidel Castro as far as dictators go. 😱

 

[Tom]

BHO was shown what happens whey you try to be a dictator. You have patriots like Ted Cruz standing up to that worthless tyrant.

He started off negotiations with "I will not negotiate" and got his way. You call that bipartisan? I guess so if you like dictatorships.

That's just false. The Republicans who did this to us wanted to end Obamacare even though they didn't have the votes to do so.

So instead of honoring the Constitution and the democratic process whereby the President and the Senate derive their authority, they took the government and economy hostage.

That's got nothing to do with negotiation.

It doesn't matter if you agree with their goal, no one should accept this tactic.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I think we'll see the same thing again in January.. Those Tea Party conservatives were elected to bring down Obamacare. Gonna go down swinging.. over and over.. Did you not hear Ted Cruz spin it? He called it an "incredible victory" for the House GOP!

​

Incredible victory? WTF?? That's incredibly delusional. Jesus, how the fuck to idiots like this get elected? I really weep for this country if anyone, outside of the mentally imbalanced consider Cruz, Bachmann or Palin a patriot.

 

[shadow9d9]

Id say Obama is closer to Fidel Castro as far as dictators go. 😱

You are more dumb than a box of rocks.

 

[nextJin]

The tea party went "extreme" because the Democrats went "extreme" in the way they forced the ACA. You can't force a bill that would never pass otherwise in the past or future using insulting tactics without pissing people off. It's how they got elected in the first place.

That said, I really really hope more of them get elected but still can't get their way. I want to see the GOP crash and burn and for libertarianism rise from their ashes.

I was hoping they wouldn't get a deal, but no one won this. Clearly Republicans lost though, big time. They hold NO CARDS, nothing. The only thing they can do is bend over and take it right up their ass without the lube.

Edit: And yes the SCOTUS said it was constitutional, but we all know their interpretation of it was completely bullshit. You don't rule on a bill based off what you think it should be. You rule on what is there, and if it got sent back to be rewritten it wouldn't have passed. It wouldn't have gotten anywhere close.

 

[Tom]

The tea party went "extreme" because the Democrats went "extreme" in the way they forced the ACA. You can't force a bill that would never pass otherwise in the past or future using insulting tactics without pissing people off. It's how they got elected in the first place.

That said, I really really hope more of them get elected but still can't get their way. I want to see the GOP crash and burn and for libertarianism rise from their ashes.

I was hoping they wouldn't get a deal, but no one won this. Clearly Republicans lost though, big time. They hold NO CARDS, nothing. The only thing they can do is bend over and take it right up their ass without the lube.

Edit: And yes the SCOTUS said it was constitutional, but we all know their interpretation of it was completely bullshit. You don't rule on a bill based off what you think it should be. You rule on what is there, and if it got sent back to be rewritten it wouldn't have passed. It wouldn't have gotten anywhere close.

What is your objection to the ACA ?

All of the people who voted for the ACA were elected by the people. What is "extreme" about using the power granted to them by the people according to the Constitution ?

It would have been BS if the Scotus had overturned the ACA becasue they didn't like it. What they did decide was recognize they aren't elected legislators who get to decide what Congress and the President decide to pass, as long as it's Constitutional.

 

[nextJin]

What is your objection to the ACA ?

All of the people who voted for the ACA were elected by the people. What is "extreme" about using the power granted to them by the people according to the Constitution ?

It would have been BS if the Scotus had overturned the ACA becasue they didn't like it. What they did decide was recognize they aren't elected legislators who get to decide what Congress and the President decide to pass, as long as it's Constitutional.

I'm a libertarian so that should give you an idea, but on the topic of the passing of it there were many instances where had the Democrats not played games it wouldn't have passed. From handing off voting authority, to late night passage to payoffs. I'm not saying Republicans wouldn't do the same thing given the opportunity but it's how it got passed.

The SCOTUS didn't have to overturn it, they just had to send it back. Either way it wouldn't have passed if fine had been replaced with tax among other things.

The bottom line and the reason they are not willing to negotiate at all is pretty simple. They had a once in a lifetime opportunity and they did everything they could to get it through. If it didn't get done then it wasn't going to happen then or at any time in the future.

They keep saying it's the law of the land, if you don't like it repeal it later, well it doesn't work that way. Not with this, might as well try and repeal the 2nd Amendment or abolish SS outright.

 

[Tom]

I'm a libertarian so that should give you an idea, but on the topic of the passing of it there were many instances where had the Democrats not played games it wouldn't have passed. From handing off voting authority, to late night passage to payoffs. I'm not saying Republicans wouldn't do the same thing given the opportunity but it's how it got passed.

The SCOTUS didn't have to overturn it, they just had to send it back. Either way it wouldn't have passed if fine had been replaced with tax among other things.

The bottom line and the reason they are not willing to negotiate at all is pretty simple. They had a once in a lifetime opportunity and they did everything they could to get it through. If it didn't get done then it wasn't going to happen then or at any time in the future.

They keep saying it's the law of the land, if you don't like it repeal it later, well it doesn't work that way. Not with this, might as well try and repeal the 2nd Amendment or abolish SS outright.

Obamacare can be repealed, so can Social Security. The 2nd Amendment can be amended out of existence.

All it takes is convincing enough people its a good idea and winning elections.

As far as you being a libertarian, I assume you object to the mandate ?

Well, it can be argued that the mandate will allow more people to exercise their right to liberty, particularly for children, if its succeeds in improving health.

Many of the uninsured in our country are the children of working people.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm a libertarian so that should give you an idea, but on the topic of the passing of it there were many instances where had the Democrats not played games it wouldn't have passed. From handing off voting authority, to late night passage to payoffs. I'm not saying Republicans wouldn't do the same thing given the opportunity but it's how it got passed.

The SCOTUS didn't have to overturn it, they just had to send it back. Either way it wouldn't have passed if fine had been replaced with tax among other things.

The bottom line and the reason they are not willing to negotiate at all is pretty simple. They had a once in a lifetime opportunity and they did everything they could to get it through. If it didn't get done then it wasn't going to happen then or at any time in the future.

They keep saying it's the law of the land, if you don't like it repeal it later, well it doesn't work that way. Not with this, might as well try and repeal the 2nd Amendment or abolish SS outright.

Another fucking idiot! The ACA was debated for a year, multiple bills were introduced, some republican, some democrat, and the presidents plan. No procedural shenanigans were used that havent been used by previous congresses or by the republican party.

And repealing the ACA is in no way similar to repealing the 2nd, one is a law and require a new law to be passed requiring a majority in congress to approve it and a willing president while the other would require a majority in congress to pass and then 38 of 50 states have to approve/ratify it.

Basic stuff.

 

[dank69]

Well 2012 was a presidential election year; higher turnout helps Democrats. 2014 is an off year with a lot of Democratic seat defenses in states Mitt Romney won. If the Republicans continue with the insanity they have displayed recently it's always possible the Democrats could hold their seats, but pickups would be awfully hard.

If you look at the states in play for that election basically the only one I can think of where Democrats stand even an outside chance at a pickup is in Maine.

Mitch's seat seems to be in play as well, now.

 

[OutHouse]

There have been numerous attempts to repeal it, delay it, or defend it by Republicans and all have failed.

But obama can make 18 changes to a law because?

 

[Mxylplyx]

I see so many Republicans blaming their failure on the media. You see folks, given the power of fox news and talk radio on the though processes of conservatives, reality is no longer reality. Truth is no longer an absolute by which their opinions are measured against. Case in point the whole "he wont negotiate" message. Those of us that are actually informed know that the Senate passed a budget, and then requested a conference with the house to reconcile the 2 budgets. Old timers know this as regular order, a long forgotten way to pass legislation. We know that the Senate requested a conference some 20 odd times, and that Republicans refused to appoint conferees. We know why they refused to appoint conferees, because their strategy was to run out the clock and try to extract concessions by using the thread of government shutdown and default. When I say we "know this", I mean we "KNOW THIS". It's not opinion or conjecture, it's simple fact. The Republicans refused to negotiate the budgets for half the year as part of a deliberate strategy, and some of you people think we are stupid enough to fall for the "Obama wont negotiate" bullshit you are spewing when Republicans were actually the ones blocking negotiation?

Those falling for that message are either ignorant and misinformed about what led up to this, or dishonest. There is no middle ground on that. It's time to climb out of the fucking echo chamber you've been living in and get some fresh air. You are being played like fools.

 

[Texashiker]

I wonder what Ted Cruz is thinking at the moment,

The terrorist won.

National debt is going up, and the people will be left folding the bill. The prosperity of future generations has been bulldozed into the ground.

 

[kage69]

Id say Obama is closer to Fidel Castro as far as dictators go. 😱

Then I guess I'll have to say you're a moron.

Well, ok, you're not a moron. But you are definitely channeling some Glenn Beck there. Just so you know, that's the web forum equivalent of punching yourself soundly in the face, then acting informed and proud about it.

My recollection of some of your other posts makes me presume that you aren't just dropping off some absurd hyperbole (at the pool) here.

Am I correct, do you really believe that? My sarcometer didn't even twitch but I figured I should check. Do tell.

 

[shira]

I dont put things into a win/loss perspective. BHO got what he wanted but not for as long. But we did show that opposition will not quietly acquiesce.

You could call that a 'tie'.

No, this was a clear victory for the U.S., and it's clear that you really don't understand what the Democrats were standing firm for. But maybe I can explain this to you:

Up until 2011, it had NEVER been the case in the history of the U.S. - NEVER - that one party attempted to extort concessions from the other by threatening to force the U.S. into default on its debt. Don't confuse what the Republicans did in 2011 - and what they just tried to do again - with past "normal" negotiations between the parties wherein additional legislation is attached to a debt-ceiling bill but there was no threat to hold up the debt-ceiling bill (and force the country into default) if those negotiations didn't result in an agreement. I'll say it again: Threatening to force the country into default if the other party doesn't make concession was a brand new strategy of the GOP that worked for them in 2011 and which they just tried again.

With the previous paragraph as background, perhaps you can understand why the Democrats consistently said, "We will not negotiate under the threat of a default." The Democrats wanted to stamp out this disgusting strategy - this extortion strategy - as a viable tool for changing the laws of this country.

Think about it: If the GOP ever again controls the Presidency and the Senate, do you want 218 Democratic House members threatening to put the U.S. into a deep recession (by forcing a default) to leverage Republicans into approving legislation to legalize gay marriage or to guarantee federal funding of all abortions or to completely socialize medicine in the U.S.?

No, the ONLY rational strategy when confronted by extortion is to refuse to negotiate. Otherwise, the extortion will be repeated again and again. The Republicans have learned a lesson here, but so have any would-be Democrat extortionists. They've learned that if you try this extortion tactic, you won't succeed, and in fact, you'll be punished for trying. And that's a good lesson and a good outcome for ALL Americans.

 

[kage69]

I see so many Republicans blaming their failure on the media. You see folks, given the power of fox news and talk radio on the though processes of conservatives, reality is no longer reality. Truth is no longer an absolute by which their opinions are measured against. Case in point the whole "he wont negotiate" message. Those of us that are actually informed know that the Senate passed a budget, and then requested a conference with the house to reconcile the 2 budgets. Old timers know this as regular order, a long forgotten way to pass legislation. We know that the Senate requested a conference some 20 odd times, and that Republicans refused to appoint conferees. We know why they refused to appoint conferees, because their strategy was to run out the clock and try to extract concessions by using the thread of government shutdown and default. When I say we "know this", I mean we "KNOW THIS". It's not opinion or conjecture, it's simple fact. The Republicans refused to negotiate the budgets for half the year as part of a deliberate strategy, and some of you people think we are stupid enough to fall for the "Obama wont negotiate" bullshit you are spewing when Republicans were actually the ones blocking negotiation?

Those falling for that message are either ignorant and misinformed about what led up to this, or dishonest. There is no middle ground on that. It's time to climb out of the fucking echo chamber you've been living in and get some fresh air. You are being played like fools.

It really is amazing that even today, with all the modes of media intake available and the level of coverage this fiasco has received, there are still people putting the cart in front of the horse. It'd be funny if it wasn't so unnecessarily damaging to the country, and just the GOTP.


Regarding the media however, you expect something different? That's been the echo chamber's go to answer for more than a decade. The MSM is the witch, the GOTP is the Vatican. Gotta have a scapegoat to focus the faithful on, can't have them challenging party dogma.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Up until 2011, it had NEVER been the case in the history of the U.S. - NEVER - that one party attempted to extort concessions from the other by threatening to force the U.S. into default on its debt. Don't confuse what the Republicans did in 2011 - and what they just tried to do again - with past "normal" negotiations between the parties wherein additional legislation is attached to a debt-ceiling bill but there was no threat to hold up the debt-ceiling bill (and force the country into default) if those negotiations didn't result in an agreement. I'll say it again: Threatening to force the country into default if the other party doesn't make concession was a brand new strategy of the GOP that worked for them in 2011 and which they just tried again.

That's cool and all, except it's not happened.

For one thing, default cannot be forced by the measures the Repubs took. But let's forget about that. Just notice that Boehner came out and said publicly that they weren't threatening default.

Fern

 

[nextJin]

Another fucking idiot! The ACA was debated for a year, multiple bills were introduced, some republican, some democrat, and the presidents plan. No procedural shenanigans were used that havent been used by previous congresses or by the republican party.

And repealing the ACA is in no way similar to repealing the 2nd, one is a law and require a new law to be passed requiring a majority in congress to approve it and a willing president while the other would require a majority in congress to pass and then 38 of 50 states have to approve/ratify it.

Basic stuff.

Sure let's debate an entire year, but pass everything you want because you think you can make it happen saying fuck the other 49%.

We can debate all year that Anarchist420 is either a retard or is just insane. Having +1 person say he is a retard prior to a vote doesn't make the other people wrong. But now you have Officially announced that he is a retard and instead of jail he will be given everything for the rest of his life.

Where as instead of him going to a secure clinic to be locked up but also get the support he needs via a compromise he now roams the Internet posting stupid.

And no shit they are different you leprechaun fuck coaster. The point was you can't take away an entitlement or "right" as our liberal friends call it.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Um was the ACA a +1 situation?

And your analogy is only applicable if a law is determining a binary outcome, not something as complex and nuanced as most laws are.

 

[shira]

That's cool and all, except it's not happened.

For one thing, default cannot be forced by the measures the Repubs took. But let's forget about that. Just notice that Boehner came out and said publicly that they weren't threatening default.

Fern

First of all, you're wrong: The treasury department made clear - and pretty much every financial analyst agreed - that if the debt limited weren't raised and that situation continued into the end of October, the U.S. would in fact default as soon as the amount of payments due on a given day exceed the amount of cash on hand on that day. The best guess was that a default would occur no later than November 1. So if the Republicans had refused to raise the debt limit, a default would CERTAINLY have occurred.

Second, why would you give credence to a politician making a statement to the press? Boehner's statement was spin plain and simple. Boehner was NEVER going to admit to the American public that his side was threatening to force if they didn't get concessions from the Democrats. In fact, the Republicans continually claimed that the Democrats were causing the crisis by "not negotiating," and they blamed the government shutdown and anything that might ensue on the Democrats.

But the reality of the situation is clear: Republicans continually referred to the "leverage" the debt-ceiling gave them. If they never intended to force a default, then where was their leverage? And why would Republicans say that they wouldn't agree to a long-term raising of the debt limit because doing so would deprived them of "leverage" in the future?

 

[michal1980]

It really is amazing that even today, with all the modes of media intake available and the level of coverage this fiasco has received, there are still people putting the cart in front of the horse. It'd be funny if it wasn't so unnecessarily damaging to the country, and just the GOTP.


Regarding the media however, you expect something different? That's been the echo chamber's go to answer for more than a decade. The MSM is the witch, the GOTP is the Vatican. Gotta have a scapegoat to focus the faithful on, can't have them challenging party dogma.

MSM came out today and without saying it said they are Obama's puppets.

This mornings news 'If not for [bashing republicans] the debt ceiling, we would be talking about how bad Obama care launch was/is'

This evening news, same thing.

They are one step from coming out publically and saying they are nothing but liberal democrats.

 

[FelixDeCat]

That's cool and all, except it's not happened.

For one thing, default cannot be forced by the measures the Repubs took. But let's forget about that. Just notice that Boehner came out and said publicly that they weren't threatening default.

Fern

Furthermore, there are legal mechanisms in place to insure that in the event the deadline was not met, interest would still be paid on the national debt as per the Constitution "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."