Obama's 12/6 Kansas speech

[spidey07]

I can't count 60 anywhere...at most I count 58 with 2 independents...is a majority with a party leaning caucus considered a supermajority? I don't know so I am asking.

Those two caucus with dems and overwhelmingly vote with them, that makes 60.

 

[feralkid]

Those two caucus with dems and overwhelmingly vote with them, that makes 60.

No, that makes you a liar.

 

[Macamus Prime]

",... the richest 1% are obtaining more wealth than the rest of the American population."

Welcome to the 1970s Mr. President.

 

[wayliff]

Those two caucus with dems and overwhelmingly vote with them, that makes 60.

Yes I see that ... my question was kind of dumb now that I re-read it.
60 is 60 regardless of party affiliation.

So I'll agree that through portion of 2009 they had the possibility of attaining supermajority to pass something.

 

[Ausm]

They never had a super majority in the senate.

Facts don't matter to Spidey.

 

[jstern01]

Except Lieberman was an independent in name only, as he indicated time and time again that he sides with Republican's on most issues. So the Democrats could only muster 59 maybe votes (no guarantee that the blue dog democrats would vote the party line and not the money line).

 

[Ausm]

Yeah and they should have actually rammed through what they wanted to do instead of trying to make the republicans happy at all. We would be in much better shape right now had that happened. I think Obama was delusional when he thought that republicans would work in a rational way. Till you see how the otherside thinks you won't be able to make correct decisions.

Don't waste your breath with that guy he makes a great candidate for the Troll Removal tool.

 

[thraashman]

The problem with when there were 60 people who mostly voted with the Democrat caucus, was that there were 40 people who ALWAYS voted against it. It doesn't matter what the policy was, they voted against it. So if 1 of those 60 didn't vote with, filibuster. You don't more than double the previous record for filibusters by a minority party by being reasonible. And since every offer of compromise by the Democrats for the good of this nation to get stuff done was met by the Republicans saying "we'll accept nothing short of getting everything we want", we're fucked. There's a problem when two parties are diametrically opposed and one (D) says "we'll compromise to get stuff done for the good of the nation" and the other (R) says "fuck the nation, we want our way no matter how much it extends the recession and fucks over the country".

Basically Spidey is championing the childish and destructive behavior of the Republicans because he never learned to share. Also I do beleive he's a case study in paranoid schizophrenia.

 

[jstern01]

And to the Gitmo situation

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...77/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

What I find relevant is this passage

There are still 172 people being held at Guantanamo, Clutter said. Congress has pretty well tied the administration's hands, prohibiting prosecution in U.S. federal courts and making it extremely difficult to transfer them to other countries, according to Clutter.

"Even if the review board determines someone should be released," Clutter said, "it will be hard to transfer them out of Guantanamo."

In other words, for the time being, there are no options other than Guantanamo. Until they figure out what to do with all of the detainees, Clutter said, it seems pretty clear they will remain at Guantanamo.

Which means either we set them free or rush their trials, with the possibility that they might actually get off on appeals if the prosecution screws the pooch.

 

[spidey07]

The problem with when there were 60 people who mostly voted with the Democrat caucus, was that there were 40 people who ALWAYS voted against it. It doesn't matter what the policy was, they voted against it. So if 1 of those 60 didn't vote with, filibuster. You don't more than double the previous record for filibusters by a minority party by being reasonible. And since every offer of compromise by the Democrats for the good of this nation to get stuff done was met by the Republicans saying "we'll accept nothing short of getting everything we want", we're fucked. There's a problem when two parties are diametrically opposed and one (D) says "we'll compromise to get stuff done for the good of the nation" and the other (R) says "fuck the nation, we want our way no matter how much it extends the recession and fucks over the country".

Basically Spidey is championing the childish and destructive behavior of the Republicans because he never learned to share. Also I do beleive he's a case study in paranoid schizophrenia.

Or maybe they were doing what the people wanted in opposing the disastrous policies of this president and the democrat congress. Of course you can't realize that because you've got the mind of a liberal as I explained above, you want even more socialism, more government and simply can't fathom that the country doesn't want it.

Remember the historic 2010 elections? That was in direct response to what the democrats passed or were wanting to pass along with the words, deeds and actions of this president. How about the republican rep winning in NYC? Remember that historic one as well? Trying to rewrite history are ya?

 

[jstern01]

Or maybe they were doing what the people wanted in opposing the disastrous policies of this president and the democrat congress. Of course you can't realize that because you've got the mind of a liberal as I explained above, you want even more socialism, more government and simply can't fathom that the country doesn't want it.

Remember the historic 2010 elections? That was in direct response to what the democrats passed or were wanting to pass along with the words, deeds and actions of this president. How about the republican rep winning in NYC? Remember that historic one as well? Trying to rewrite history are ya?

Midterms traditionally favor the minority party, note the Democrats regaining contol of the House in 2006, and the Republicans in 2010. Now the number of seats that changed was greater in 2010 (31(2006) versus 63(2010)), this is still not outside the norm for example the 1994 election where Republicans garnered 54. Compared to the Presidental cycles where a change in seats is much lower.

 

[spidey07]

Midterms traditionally favor the minority party, note the Democrats regaining contol of the House in 2006, and the Republicans in 2010. Now the number of seats that changed was greater in 2010 (31(2006) versus 63(2010)), this is still not outside the norm for example the 1994 election where Republicans garnered 54. Compared to the Presidental cycles where a change in seats is much lower.

I'll just leave this here...sure it's a blog, but just google "historic 2010 elections". Obama has been setting all kinds of records in his presidency, too bad they're all bad ones. And when you couple with what happened on the state level, it was a MASSIVE shift never before seen.

http://blog.timesunion.com/nypotomac/twenty-reasons-the-2010-election-made-history/4288/

☛ It was the biggest gain for one party since voters repudiated the “Do-Nothing Republican Congress” in 1948 by giving Democrats a 75-seat pickup.

☛ It was the biggest setback for a president in a midterm election since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Democrats lost 72 seats in 1938.
warren harding.jpg

Warren G. Harding was the last president to lose this many House seats in his first midterm election.

☛ President Obama lost more seats in his first midterm election than any president since Warren G. Harding’s Republicans suffered a 77-seat setback in 1922.

 

[cybrsage]

Welcome to the 1970s Mr. President.

More like Welcome to the 1500s, Mr. President.

 

[Ausm]

The problem with when there were 60 people who mostly voted with the Democrat caucus, was that there were 40 people who ALWAYS voted against it. It doesn't matter what the policy was, they voted against it. So if 1 of those 60 didn't vote with, filibuster. You don't more than double the previous record for filibusters by a minority party by being reasonible. And since every offer of compromise by the Democrats for the good of this nation to get stuff done was met by the Republicans saying "we'll accept nothing short of getting everything we want", we're fucked. There's a problem when two parties are diametrically opposed and one (D) says "we'll compromise to get stuff done for the good of the nation" and the other (R) says "fuck the nation, we want our way no matter how much it extends the recession and fucks over the country".

Basically Spidey is championing the childish and destructive behavior of the Republicans because he never learned to share. Also I do beleive he's a case study in paranoid schizophrenia.

I think the therapist Spidey goes to would have to seek his/her own therapy after that session.

 

[thraashman]

Or maybe they were doing what the people wanted in opposing the disastrous policies of this president and the democrat congress. Of course you can't realize that because you've got the mind of a liberal as I explained above, you want even more socialism, more government and simply can't fathom that the country doesn't want it.

Remember the historic 2010 elections? That was in direct response to what the democrats passed or were wanting to pass along with the words, deeds and actions of this president. How about the republican rep winning in NYC? Remember that historic one as well? Trying to rewrite history are ya?

You talk about rewriting history, but that's exactly what you're doing. Obama and Democrats were enacting a set of policies that was exactly the platform they ran on and got elected to enact! People weren't upset with the Dem policies, they were upset with the economy. People are notoriously impatient and decided things were moving quickly enough, so unfortunately people made the mistake of voting back in the people who caused the economic problems to begin with. Obviously I'm never gonna understand something coming from the mind of a person who screams the word socialism but obviously doesn't even begin to grasp what socialism actually is. I'm too intelligent to figure out the crazy rantings from a mind that ... fractured.

 

[Herr Kutz]

Where did this guy learn his geography?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16061134

 

[jstern01]

Where did this guy learn his geography?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16061134

Same Place these notables did.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/stories/9-of-the-stupidest-geography-gaffes-by-politicians

 

[dmcowen674]

all talk.

I actually agree here.

Of all the things he "talked" about there is really nothing he could do about any of them with the current configuration of the U.S. controlled by the Corporations.

Unless this configuration is undone at some point it is only a short matter it is done and over with.

 

[thraashman]

Where did this guy learn his geography?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16061134

That's more of a verbal slip than a geography issue as he did correct himself. I'm sure it happens to people in any profession that has them traveling a lot that they say the wrong place. In fact I know I've heard of it happening to musicians a lot.

 

[Matt1970]

the only difference is that the message of the tea party is stupid, and occupy makes sense.

Still waiting for the message from occupy.

 

[Herr Kutz]

That's more of a verbal slip than a geography issue as he did correct himself. I'm sure it happens to people in any profession that has them traveling a lot that they say the wrong place. In fact I know I've heard of it happening to musicians a lot.

He only realized his "mistake" when the entire audience laughed at him.

 

[First]

It was a good speech, and he's spot-on on nearly all the issues. He's also kept all his promises on health care and Medicare, the stimulus, bringing troops home (and effectively combating terrorism far better/cheaper than the previous admin), financial reform, and of course he'll undoubtedly get higher taxes on the rich soon enough, though that might also include the middle class if the Repubs continue not to compromise. Overall he's done quite well.

 

[Craig234]

Progressives correctly note, this is campaign season and predicted Obama will talk progressive to firm up his base. And that his actions have fallen short of his speeches.

But it's still much better to have Obama doing a half-ass progressive agenda than a Republican who is at war with the American people serving in the army of the 1%.

 

[Jhhnn]

And to the Gitmo situation

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...77/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

What I find relevant is this passage

There are still 172 people being held at Guantanamo, Clutter said. Congress has pretty well tied the administration's hands, prohibiting prosecution in U.S. federal courts and making it extremely difficult to transfer them to other countries, according to Clutter.

"Even if the review board determines someone should be released," Clutter said, "it will be hard to transfer them out of Guantanamo."

In other words, for the time being, there are no options other than Guantanamo. Until they figure out what to do with all of the detainees, Clutter said, it seems pretty clear they will remain at Guantanamo.

Which means either we set them free or rush their trials, with the possibility that they might actually get off on appeals if the prosecution screws the pooch.

Lame obfuscation all around. Some of the prisoners have been held for 10 years, rendering the notion that "rushing their trials might be a problem" into an absurdity. There have been no trials because the govt can't make their case in anything short of a kangaroo court. Evidence? Hearsay & coerced confessions, almost exclusively, utterly inadmissible in what any rational person would consider to be a fair trial.

The rest? Obama needs to grow a pair. What'll they do to him, anyway? Impeach him? Pure fantasy. Take away his birthday? Have a snit? Whine a lot? Obstruct his initiatives any more than they already are?

So What?

 

[werepossum]

Yes I see that ... my question was kind of dumb now that I re-read it.
60 is 60 regardless of party affiliation.

So I'll agree that through portion of 2009 they had the possibility of attaining supermajority to pass something.

They had a virtual certainty of passing anything they wanted as long as it wasn't batshit crazy. However, the two parties are more alike than dislike, and radical societal changes run into the fact that even though you have 60 votes, your side still has to get re-elected. Loyalty in D.C. runs first to re-election, then to party, then to ideology, then to country. Asking politicians to do something that will likely result in them losing their cushy jobs requires a lot of bribery and arm-bending.

Obama could still pass nearly anything that he desires, but first he has to sell it to the American people. Just as Democrats don't want to vote for something that will get them fired, Republicans don't want to not vote for something if that will get them fired.