• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Shift on Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
If you dont have 60 party votes in the Senate, you cant do shit.

When exactly did Obama have 60 votes party votes in the Senate?

It wasn't like Bush where he had a majority in the house and 60 votes in the Senate to ram a shit ton of stuff through.
Obamacare got passed with 60 votes (58-D and 2-I)...how soon we forget. (BTW, both Independents caucused with the Democrats.)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396
 
Last edited:

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Trying traitors is part of the process too. If the folk don't like it, they could always vote me out of office.
There is an issue that seems clouded by reality...

The President's enumerated power is what it is... He is the Executive... He is charged with effecting the laws Congress makes... The Constitution is reasonably written.

Congress, in their collective wisdom and under the Constitutional blankey, are not committing treason when they do or don't do what is good for the Nation or the President's enhancement.

I have no doubt that McConnell thinks Obama is not only wrong but a liberal trying to enact the wrong kind of laws which will sink the US. I venture to say that Obama and the rest of the Left feel McConnell is wrong to the same extent.

Looking about I seem to see that there are about half the voting population in agreement with McConnell and his Caucus. In 2002 he had the support of like 65% of the voters and in 2008 about 53%... that is a large drop... I don't think many liberals moved to Kentucky in that interval so maybe in 2014 we'll be rid of him..

In summary, I'd say he's not guilty of trying to overthrow the government... He IS government.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
Democracy in action...

IF we as a nation want Obamaism then so be it... Elect a filibuster proof Senate and a Liberal House... Simple. Otherwise applaud stagnating Government.

Edit: or visa versa
Again we come to the same impasse we usually do, you to process and me to what I believe to be a higher truth. When process destroys the nation somebody has got to step in and lead. It is wrong to fuck the nation for the sake of voting the President out and your own party in. It is unAmerican and it is treason. The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war but today total destruction can happen in less than an hour. So the President was given the power to commit us to war damn fast if the need arises. It's the same with traitors in the Senate. Nobody thought traitors would occupy seats and try to destroy the nation from within. The President has the right and the duty to save the nation. Let the Senate concern THEMSELVES with how they vote least they wind up in a dungeon for treason. This country was born in revolution and we can have two more, one to jail the senate and the other to throw out the President as the wind blows.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
There is an issue that seems clouded by reality...

The President's enumerated power is what it is... He is the Executive... He is charged with effecting the laws Congress makes... The Constitution is reasonably written.

Congress, in their collective wisdom and under the Constitutional blankey, are not committing treason when they do or don't do what is good for the Nation or the President's enhancement.

I have no doubt that McConnell thinks Obama is not only wrong but a liberal trying to enact the wrong kind of laws which will sink the US. I venture to say that Obama and the rest of the Left feel McConnell is wrong to the same extent.

Looking about I seem to see that there are about half the voting population in agreement with McConnell and his Caucus. In 2002 he had the support of like 65% of the voters and in 2008 about 53%... that is a large drop... I don't think many liberals moved to Kentucky in that interval so maybe in 2014 we'll be rid of him..

In summary, I'd say he's not guilty of trying to overthrow the government... He IS government.
The validity of this analysis turns on whether you think the republicans blocked Obama's agenda because they thought it really was all wrong, all the time, or because they knew that blocking said agenda would damage the economy and hence make it easier for republicans to get elected, and sitting republicans to be re-elected. I don't know the answer to this question. I suspect some of both was going here, to varying degrees and depending on the individual republican.

But assuming for the moment that a member of Congress votes against legislation, knowing that doing this will harm the country, and does so for political advantage, how would you characterize that? I don't know if Moonbeam's "treason" is the right word, but it is definitely something more than "democracy in action." What it is, actually, is a complete and total failure of democracy.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
The validity of this analysis turns on whether you think the republicans blocked Obama's agenda because they thought it really was all wrong, all the time, or because they knew that blocking said agenda would damage the economy and hence make it easier for republicans to get elected, and sitting republicans to be re-elected. I don't know the answer to this question. I suspect some of both was going here, to varying degrees and depending on the individual republican.

But assuming for the moment that a member of Congress votes against legislation, knowing that doing this will harm the country, and does so for political advantage, how would you characterize that? I don't know if Moonbeam's "treason" is the right word, but it is definitely something more than "democracy in action." What it is, actually, is a complete and total failure of democracy.
I figure that the answer must be that the Right wants to have a country that is consistent with their view... Just like the Left does.

The problem is found in the absence of compromise when there is a divided law making government. Right holds the House and the Left the Executive and apparently no one holds the Senate.

The compromise needed to get stuff going simply is too distasteful for either side to move off their positions. McConnell more or less is saying that on any issue that is not mutual we are blocking it and because of that situation we want rid of Obama in 2012.
The issue beyond that is that unless the Right can get a filibuster proof Senate they won't get anywhere regardless of who is in office.

IF we don't like what the rules are then we can change the rules or the people... I like the rules so opt for changing the people.

Moonbeam goes right to the issue of what is right and that means if it don't happen for what ever reason it is wrong... He's right, of course, but he can't change anything by advocating treason charges... People changes is the way to operate... we do have laws and the Constitution is the law... So under law we vote out the wrong doers and elect right minded folks....

Vote... vote for the liberal of your choice but vote... ():)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
holy fuck what a pos
Not to worry... Reed will say that his only objective is to make Romney a one term president ... if Romney wins...

We need 100 Independent Senators who don't caucus with any party... along with 435 Representitives who likewise are Independent...

I don't see Romney winning though... I can't imagine the Christian South voting for him... over a Christian Obama... guess they'll work hard to make Obama a Muslim... then it is a toss up... :eek:
 

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
Maybe McConnell a fascist, I don't know, but I do know he's a traitor pure and simple. And that lib to Nazi thingi sounds for all the world like conservative brain disease.
This, and your later comments, show that you have no respect for our form of government nor any understanding of fascism.

When W was president and when democrats opposed every thing he did (including blocking multiple judicial appointments; and one specifically because he was a Latino, re: Miguel Estrada), it was considered patriotic. It was our current Sec of State who stated: ""I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." Democrats did every single thing they could to make sure W wouldn't be reelected in 2004. Yet now, when a minority of Republicans oppose this president, not because of his race but because of his policies, they are branded racists and traitors.

Second, I brought up fascism yet you decided to invoke Goodwins Law by bringing up the Nazis. Fascism is a form of government that was around before the Nazis and after. It's been practiced in this country in the past (under Woodrow Wilson) and our current president along with many on the left want a system similar to what was practiced in Italy in the 20's and 30's or what is being practiced in China today.
 

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
Not to worry... Reed will say that his only objective is to make Romney a one term president ... if Romney wins...

We need 100 Independent Senators who don't caucus with any party... along with 435 Representitives who likewise are Independent...

I don't see Romney winning though... I can't imagine the Christian South voting for him... over a Christian Obama... guess they'll work hard to make Obama a Muslim... then it is a toss up... :eek:

You don't need to portray Obama as a Muslim. You just need to portray him as going to a anti-American christian church for 20 years.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,421
21,345
136
This, and your later comments, show that you have no respect for our form of government nor any understanding of fascism.

When W was president and when democrats opposed every thing he did (including blocking multiple judicial appointments; and one specifically because he was a Latino, re: Miguel Estrada), it was considered patriotic. It was our current Sec of State who stated: ""I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." Democrats did every single thing they could to make sure W wouldn't be reelected in 2004. Yet now, when a minority of Republicans oppose this president, not because of his race but because of his policies, they are branded racists and traitors.

Second, I brought up fascism yet you decided to invoke Goodwins Law by bringing up the Nazis. Fascism is a form of government that was around before the Nazis and after. It's been practiced in this country in the past (under Woodrow Wilson) and our current president along with many on the left want a system similar to what was practiced in Italy in the 20's and 30's or what is being practiced in China today.
The Democrats opposed every thing that George Bush did? Really! This is very interesting news. I would invite you to go look at the number of filibusters undertaken by Democrats in the Senate while Bush was President and the Senate was under Republican control. I would also invite you to check the number of blocked judicial appointments during the first 3 years of Bush's term, since you specifically brought them up.

Then come back and say you're sorry.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,421
21,345
136
You don't need to portray Obama as a Muslim. You just need to portray him as going to a anti-American christian church for 20 years.
Yeah, that worked really well last time.

You're probably going to say "But McCain didn't do it!", to which I will respond: 'lots of other people did'. It's a loser issue.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,852
4,799
126

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
You don't need to portray Obama as a Muslim. You just need to portray him as going to a anti-American christian church for 20 years.
Hey Bub, I'm the fascist here. I will determine what's Anti-American, who goes to an Anti-American church, and who should be tried for treason. Fuck off, you tin horned Nazi Wannabe.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,464
2
0
The validity of this analysis turns on whether you think the republicans blocked Obama's agenda because they thought it really was all wrong, all the time, or because they knew that blocking said agenda would damage the economy and hence make it easier for republicans to get elected, and sitting republicans to be re-elected. I don't know the answer to this question. I suspect some of both was going here, to varying degrees and depending on the individual republican.

But assuming for the moment that a member of Congress votes against legislation, knowing that doing this will harm the country, and does so for political advantage, how would you characterize that? I don't know if Moonbeam's "treason" is the right word, but it is definitely something more than "democracy in action." What it is, actually, is a complete and total failure of democracy.
regardless of the motive behind it, we'll see if it was the "right thing" by their constituants. If they get reelected, then they voted accordingly, if they get voted out, they dun fscked up
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
The validity of this analysis turns on whether you think the republicans blocked Obama's agenda because they thought it really was all wrong, all the time, or because they knew that blocking said agenda would damage the economy and hence make it easier for republicans to get elected, and sitting republicans to be re-elected.
I don't think it does. Mitch committed treason by saying his number one priority is to make Obama a one term President because that means that doing what is good for the country is somewhere down the list. And it means also that if a vote is good for the country and good for Obama's re-election, than O' is going to vote against it. He commits treason by his own words. He states what his motives will be. He states that he will vote against the good of the people if it will help to defeat Obama. Treason, plain and simple.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,468
389
121
Joe Lieberman (I) was a tool of the insurance industry, he only agreed to vote with Democrats after major concessions to the industry. When every senator has a veto, you get this type of legislation.
I imagine that knife in his back didn't help matters either.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
I for one am glad to see our leaders are basing their objections to legislation that would affect hundreds of millions of Americans based on spite.
The Republicans are basing their objections to bad legislation on what is good for the country. That is why they keep filibustering bad legislation by the Democrats. They're doing it for the good of the country.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,421
21,345
136
The Republicans are basing their objections to bad legislation on what is good for the country. That is why they keep filibustering bad legislation by the Democrats. They're doing it for the good of the country.
blah blah blah
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
I am not fond of this practice either, but Congress has been so hostile to the President's efforts to do just about anything, including making routine appointments, that this is the inevitable result.
^^ Hostile is an understatement tho. ;)
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
The Republicans are basing their objections to bad legislation on what is good for the country. That is why they keep filibustering bad legislation by the Democrats. They're doing it for the good of the country.
LMAO X 10 to the 100th power.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
LMAO X 10 to the 100th power.
Democrats always claim that the reason they filibustered legislation by Bush was the good of the country, why wouldn't the opposite be true? Unless of course it's just partisan bullshit on both sides?
Now you partisan Democrats can go "wah wah wah false equivalence! ebil repugs did it more often!"
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS