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

[Agent11]

IF they were willing to compromise AT ALL that would have some merit. THEY ARE NOT THOUGH.

 

[irishScott]

IF they were willing to compromise AT ALL that would have some merit. THEY ARE NOT THOUGH.

We'll see. The "obstruct until a Republican President is elected" strategy has now fallen flat in their faces, and they don't want to risk long-term marginalization. I'm not saying they will drift towards the center, but there's a least a decent chance of it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yea right. Corporations are people too my friend.

There ought to be limitations on that. Now the liberal court take is that a government can take your home to resell it to developers for the sole purpose of raising taxes, a position embraced by some here on the left.

Now I find that not only the funding system but the whole electoral process to be that of ensuring no real challenge can be practically made against the duopoly which is the repu lidems, the illusion of real difference. That part about liberal property grabbing? Hardly ever mentioned. Since I am not owned ideologically or by party, convince me that the lefts action is justified and the other not. For the reps you can try your reasoning if you like.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thats true. The Constitution won't withstand that, so perhaps we need to understand we're subjects and get the idea of protections out of the way now. Instead of that document being correctly read we'll be subject to one philosophy to rule then all. I can hardly wait.

Obviously, the guy who can "correctly" interpret the Constitution is you, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

Ahh, so the motivation is revenge, and if our collective nose is cut off by further abuse of the Constitution so be it. Thats an honest perspective. I do note that of all the abuses you pick the election, but citizens no longer have protections to be secure in there person as warrants are no longer required, an Obama supported and strengthened fact as is the fact that your President with support of your party backed the NDAA. But I suppose that because reps would lock up citizens without due process based on accusation you can to. Thats trivial. Your party losing is worse than that. I appreciate open hatred, it's a natural state of man.

Oh, please. It was HOR repubs who made the NDAA the way it is-

http://www.alternet.org/newsandview...ibiting_indefinite_detention_of_u.s._citizens

The Senate passed it and the president signed it because they needed the rest of the bill, and because they knew full well it was the best that the HOR would give them.

Sheesh.

 

[shadow9d9]

Yeah, it's a mandate for compromise. You do know that Obama won by much less of the popular vote this time right?

But go ahead and fap to your "mandate" of fewer supporters than last time.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...mas-diverse-base-of-support.html?ref=politics

332 to 206. Well more than Bush. Or, as Dick Morris says, a "landslide." Pretty decisive to win pretty much every single battleground state. Hell, he won Virginia, a hick stronghold.

 

[jagec]

There ought to be limitations on that. Now the liberal court take is that a government can take your home to resell it to developers for the sole purpose of raising taxes, a position embraced by some here on the left.

Kelo v. New London was a universally hated decision across America, but it got more hate from the left than from the right.

You kids sure like to call people "Partisan hacks" on this forum.

Because most people on this forum are partisan hacks.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Oh, please. It was HOR repubs who made the NDAA the way it is-

http://www.alternet.org/newsandview...ibiting_indefinite_detention_of_u.s._citizens

The Senate passed it and the president signed it because they needed the rest of the bill, and because they knew full well it was the best that the HOR would give them.

Sheesh.

"he needed"? No. he needed to make a point and drive it home. You gave him a pass with not pursuing Iraq. How about backing ATT? Wiretaps? He needed those too? Principles of convenience.

 

[irishScott]

332 to 206. Well more than Bush. Or, as Dick Morris says, a "landslide." Pretty decisive to win pretty much every single battleground state. Hell, he won Virginia, a hick stronghold.

I said popular vote. Obama lost supporters virtually nationwide, just not enough to lose the election.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...mas-diverse-base-of-support.html?ref=politics

A "mandate" is when a significant majority of the people are behind you and that majority is steady or growing.

And speaking as a native Virginian, the county I grew up in could likely buy yours if all its incomes were combined. Kindly fuck off.