Why is the MSM pushing this meme of Obama having to Compromise?

[Genx87]

The problem is that's not what we have to worry about. The Republicans since Obama took office have been clear that their intent was to obstruct and have made statements about being completely unwilling to compromise. It's not Obama and the Democrats we have to worry about being unwilling to meet half way. It's the GOP we have to worry about being completely unwilling to budge. Obama won pretty handily and the GOP lost seats in both the House and Senate, I think we have our mandate of who the people want to make the decisions.

We dont know if that is something we have to worry about now do we? If Obama takes the opinion of the resident hacks on this forum. Then you can expect him to stonewall the legislative branch out of false security. That will end in disaster for the country and democrats.

A mandate happens every once in awhile. Like I would say in 1994 and 2008. A president winning an election and gaining very nominal seats is not a mandate.

 

[Genx87]

How can you assume when that?? Maybe since I am a Liberal, I ran out of gubermint subsidies to pay for my Internet connection?

Is that what happened? If so well then go get a job.

 

[Ausm]

Is that what happened? If so well then go get a job.

No but your're stupid enough to believe it.....

This Election proved that Rightwing Billionaires and Rightwing Voter suppression CANNOT buy an Election.

/que Happy dance

 

[her209]

A mandate happens every once in awhile. Like I would say in 1994, 2006, and 2010. A president winning an election and gaining very nominal seats is not a mandate.

How is 2010 a mandate? Gaining a majority control in half of Congress is a mandate?

 

[Genx87]

No but your're stupid enough to believe it.....

Oh you really fooled me there. Yeah, I believed your govt subsidies ran out and you lost internet numbnutz. Seriously? I called you a coward earlier in this thread. Clearly that is what I truely believe. Your infantile ego couldnt handle being so wrong about the recall election. And you ran away until there was something you could gloat about.

So like I said. Your opinion on what is or isnt a mandate doesnt have a good track record.

 

[dank69]

That statement sounds like a partisan hack type of statement.

Compromise takes TWO SIDES.
We have Democrats and Republicans (and others.)

THERE SHOULD ALWAYS BE some degree of compromise when the two sides disagree. Period, /thread.


Do you not know what it means to compromise? I'll give you an example: I want a 70" LED LCD for Christmas. My wife wants a 50" LED LCD for Christmas. If we got a 70", that doesn't mean she compromised - it means she gave in. Likewise, if we got a 50", we didn't compromise. Instead, we'll get a 60" and both will be happy.

Other ways to compromise, "okay, we'll get the 70" that you prefer, but on this thing that I prefer, we'll get that."

Fuck. That. Shit. Dems reaching across the aisle got us NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Steagall, and the individual mandate, to name just three disasters that they now try to pin on Democrats. I repeat. Fuck. That. Shit. The Republican party has a total of ZERO good ideas. Fuck them and fuck their supporters.

 

[Genx87]

How is 2010 a mandate? Gaining a majority control in half of Congress is a mandate?

I edited it out for obvious reasons.

 

[Ausm]

Oh you really fooled me there. Yeah, I believed your govt subsidies ran out and you lost internet numbnutz. Seriously? I called you a coward earlier in this thread. Clearly that is what I truely believe. Your infantile ego couldnt handle being so wrong about the recall election. And you ran away until there was something you could gloat about.

So like I said. Your opinion on what is or isnt a mandate doesnt have a good track record.

Wow Your're an awful angry Republitroll this morning...must not like getting bitch slapped in Elections?

 

[Ausm]

Fuck. That. Shit. Dems reaching across the aisle got us NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Steagall, and the individual mandate, to name just three disasters that they now try to pin on Democrats. I repeat. Fuck. That. Shit. The Republican party has a total of ZERO good ideas. Fuck them and fuck their supporters.

^^^^ ALL Disasterous Repuglicant Ideas! The Repeal of Glass-Steagall brought us almost to Financial ruin.

 

[fskimospy]

I think liberals have this false sense of what actually happened on Tuesday night. There was no mandate, the american people didnt vote for or against liberal or conservative ideas. They voted for the status quo. Meaning the american people want a divided govt and want them to figure it out. We have pretty much the same basic makeup of govt we had on Nov 5th. It doesnt get more status quo than that.

You realize that without partisan redistricting the Democrats would likely have taken the house as well, right?

With that in mind it's hard to say that people supported the status quo. It says a lot about the effectiveness of gerrymandering though.

 

[Atreus21]

That statement sounds like a partisan hack type of statement.

Compromise takes TWO SIDES.
We have Democrats and Republicans (and others.)

THERE SHOULD ALWAYS BE some degree of compromise when the two sides disagree. Period, /thread.


Do you not know what it means to compromise? I'll give you an example: I want a 70" LED LCD for Christmas. My wife wants a 50" LED LCD for Christmas. If we got a 70", that doesn't mean she compromised - it means she gave in. Likewise, if we got a 50", we didn't compromise. Instead, we'll get a 60" and both will be happy.

Other ways to compromise, "okay, we'll get the 70" that you prefer, but on this thing that I prefer, we'll get that."

Compromise: The best way to ensure that nobody gets what they want.

 

[dank69]

nm

 

[Genx87]

You realize that without partisan redistricting the Democrats would likely have taken the house as well, right?

With that in mind it's hard to say that people supported the status quo. It says a lot about the effectiveness of gerrymandering though.

This is what we are going to hand our hat on why democrats didnt deliver a crushing defeat? Gerrymandering? Im not buying it given the large drop off in voter turnout for Obama compared to 08. If Obama energized the electorate like 08 democrats probably could have taken back the house regardless of gerrymandering.

 

[Genx87]

Wow Your're an awful angry Republitroll this morning...must not like getting bitch slapped in Elections?

Hardly, I came to the conclusion of what was going to happen Tues night months ago. Romney was not a good candidate to run in this race. There is nothing to be angry about from the election. We have the same govt we had Nov 5th. Now there rest of what is happening within the govt there is plenty to be angry about.

That said I think it is hilarious you came back to gloat after Obama won.

 

[emperus]

You realize that without partisan redistricting the Democrats would likely have taken the house as well, right?

With that in mind it's hard to say that people supported the status quo. It says a lot about the effectiveness of gerrymandering though.

I was just about to post this. The house is the most undemocratic part of the government outside of the Supreme Court. The seats are set up by Gerrymandering. When you have to win a state or national election, it gives you a better feel of where the people are.

 

[emperus]

Hardly, I came to the conclusion of what was going to happen Tues night months ago. Romney was not a good candidate to run in this race. There is nothing to be angry about from the election. We have the same govt we had Nov 5th. Now there rest of what is happening within the govt there is plenty to be angry about.

That said I think it is hilarious you came back to gloat after Obama won.

Your side lost. Obama won. What is hard to understand. The ideas you had lost. Your candidate lost. When u get that we as a country can move forward and your Party can begin to move forward.

 

[shira]

Yes go with that. That will end well for democrats in 2014. If The republicans are willing to meet halfway and Obama does nothing. Kiss the senate good bye in 2014.

What does "halfway" mean? If Republicans continue to insist that there be no actual, defined tax increases, then they're not compromising.

 

[Genx87]

Your side lost. Obama won. What is hard to understand. The ideas you had lost. Your candidate lost. When u get that we as a country can move forward and your Party can begin to move forward.

What is funny about this post is the assumption because I am not towing the line about a great liberal victory it is because my side lost. Here is a clue for you. My side lost when Romney was selected as the presidential nominee months ago. The fact he lost has no affect on my feelings going forward. He was a poor candidate and I have said so repeatedly. My ideas havent lost, in fact much of my ideas saw quite a following in the primary season within the republican party. Turnout was double what it was in 08.

I am already well past knowing my party needs to move forward. And I have also voiced that repeatedly on this forum.

 

[Genx87]

What does "halfway" mean? If Republicans continue to insist that there be no actual, defined tax increases, then they're not compromising.

Since neither side has laid out a definitive plan yet how am I to define that?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not arguing against Compromise. We have divided Goverment, but we just had an election on ideas Obama won them. Yes, he's going to have to be realistic. But it should be a 70/30 compromise rather than Obama have to come in saying, that all the things I just spoke about and a majority of the country elected me to accomplish I'm going to compromise because the GOP owns 1/2 of one part of the government.

We had yet another selection of the lesser of two evils. Obama won on that by two points Neither showed the wit to lead, having demonstrated no originality or foresight. By my standards they are unexceptional minds who appeal to the same. Mediocre representatives for lesser people. Would that we had those of the founders wit and wisdom. I doubt we'll see their like in this nation again.

 

[Ausm]

Hardly, I came to the conclusion of what was going to happen Tues night months ago. Romney was not a good candidate to run in this race. There is nothing to be angry about from the election. We have the same govt we had Nov 5th. Now there rest of what is happening within the govt there is plenty to be angry about.

That said I think it is hilarious you came back to gloat after Obama won.

I really came back because I thought you personally missed me.

 

[Ausm]

We had yet another selection of the lesser of two evils. Obama won on that by two points Neither showed the wit to lead, having demonstrated no originality or foresight. By my standards they are unexceptional minds who appeal to the same. Mediocre representatives for lesser people. Would that we had those of the founders wit and wisdom. I doubt we'll see their like in this nation again.

The MOST important reason the President Obama needed to be elected is the potential retirement of 3 SCOTUS judges. We can FINALLY move the SCOTUS to the left. I used this argument to get many of my friends who were on the fence to vote BLUE.

 

[emperus]

What is funny about this post is the assumption because I am not towing the line about a great liberal victory it is because my side lost. Here is a clue for you. My side lost when Romney was selected as the presidential nominee months ago. The fact he lost has no affect on my feelings going forward. He was a poor candidate and I have said so repeatedly. My ideas havent lost, in fact much of my ideas saw quite a following in the primary season within the republican party. Turnout was double what it was in 08.

I am already well past knowing my party needs to move forward. And I have also voiced that repeatedly on this forum.

You don't even have a clue why Romney Lost. Romney lost because of the Republican primary. His closest point to winning was after the first debate where he basically moved to the left of Obama on some issues. Your base is crazy and anyone who comes out of that primary will lose. Look it, Hermain Cain (9-9-9), Donald Trump (Mr. Birther), Santorum(believing everyone should go to college is elitist) etc. Who else would have won? Until you become a national party and beat back the cockroaches, you'll continue to lose national and state elections.

Here's a good article on it.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/mitt-romney-s-original-sin-20120920

 

[emperus]

The MOST important reason the President Obama needed to be elected is the potential retirement of 3 SCOTUS judges. We can FINALLY move the SCOTUS to the left. I used this argument to get many of my friends who were on the fence to vote BLUE.

I looked at the ages last night. I think the Ginsberg and Breyer will retire but Scalia and Kennedy may wait it out 4 years.

 

[Genx87]

You don't even have a clue why Romney Lost. Romney lost because of the Republican primary. His closest point to winning was after the first debate where he basically moved to the left of Obama on some issues. Your base is crazy and anyone who comes out of that primary will lose. Look it, Hermain Cain (9-9-9), Donald Trump (Mr. Birther), Santorum(believing everyone should go to college is elitist) etc. Who else would have won? Until you become a national party and beat back the cockroaches, you'll continue to lose national and state elections.

Here's a good article on it.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/mitt-romney-s-original-sin-20120920

It is like I am talking to a brick wall. What part of my side lost months ago didnt you understand? Are you really trying to debate me on something I have already agreed about?