Will Obama now work with republicans?

[ivwshane]

God damn it esky!

 

[bshole]

God damn it esky!

You guys got the Vulcan mind meld thing going on! ROFLMAO!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The vast majority were not bioartisan, at least not when you're talking about bills that weren't about renaming a post office ir whatever.

Additionally, Reid not bringing those bills to a vote had absolutely nothing to do with Obama. Reid was protecting fellow senators from having to take problematic votes, not protecting Obama. (Obama doesn't need protection, he's not up for re-election)

Good point. Do you have a link that the vast majority were not bipartisan?

 

[fskimospy]

Good point. Do you have a link that the vast majority were not bipartisan?

It would depend on how those terms are defined I guess. Ie: if a bill passes with a single vote from the other party is it bipartisan? Technically, yes, but a very strong case could be made for no.

I'll have to look for it, but I remember reading an article about this somewhere. If I remember right there were a lot of bills that the house passed about stupid crap and they were generally bipartisan. The substantive legislation was generally not very bipartisan at all.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

The vast majority were not bioartisan, at least not when you're talking about bills that weren't about renaming a post office ir whatever.

Additionally, Reid not bringing those bills to a vote had absolutely nothing to do with Obama. Reid was protecting fellow senators from having to take problematic votes, not protecting Obama. (Obama doesn't need protection, he's not up for re-election)

Well over 200 bills have passed the House with 50 or more Democrat votes. In other words, over 200 legitimately bipartisan House bills await Senate action. If having to make a problematic vote is a problem for you, maybe you shouldn't have a seat in the house of representatives. It's not really about Obama, It's about Obama's ??? AGENDA! On Tuesday a majority stated with their votes, we don't like what you're doing!!! R, OR D.

 

[fskimospy]

Well over 200 bills have passed the House with 50 or more Democrat votes. In other words, over 200 legitimately bipartisan House bills await Senate action. If having to make a problematic vote is a problem for you, maybe you shouldn't have a seat in the house of representatives. It's not really about Obama, It's about Obama's ??? AGENDA! On Tuesday a majority stated with their votes, we don't like what you're doing!!! R, OR D.

You realize that Reid isn't even the reason for all those bills not coming up anyway, right? I'm certain he is blocking some of them, but I'm also sure there were plenty held up for other reasons.

As for not taking troublesome votes, get real. Every politician does that, it's part of the game.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Link?

To what?

 

[ivwshane]

Well over 200 bills have passed the House with 50 or more Democrat votes. In other words, over 200 legitimately bipartisan House bills await Senate action. If having to make a problematic vote is a problem for you, maybe you shouldn't have a seat in the house of representatives. It's not really about Obama, It's about Obama's ??? AGENDA! On Tuesday a majority stated with their votes, we don't like what you're doing!!! R, OR D.

No, clearly that's not what this election was about. The electorate (of which was about a 1/3 of what came out in 2012), voted for republican leaders but they voted for progressive policies. Clearly the American public doesn't like dems but they like their policies.

 

[Knowing]

It's telling how much you're trying to dance here. You're reduced to linking to articles about Rome because you have no evidence for the filibuster being part of the US government.

Because I never made that claim.

Baffling non-sequitur, although that's kind of funny in that it appears you didn't understand the other thread either.

So me catching you trying to provide me with an argument is a non-sequitur? Are you serious right now?

We shouldn't care what the founders thought for how we run our government today.

So, again, why do you care so much?

When you say something was designed with a specific feature, we should obviously care what the designers thought when they were making it to determine if that is true.

So you do or don't care? The system fails closed rather than open.

This is not complicated.

Then why can't you stick to claims I've made rather than whatever you want to try to drag in to the discussion.

By your logic the 9th amendment grants an affirmative right to furry porn and literally everything else on the planet.

Those would be positive rights, and I'm pretty sure you don't understand the distinction.

This has gone beyond an ignorance of civics and the constitution and moved into some basic logical thinking issues. I'm open to assist with those as well.

You're the one who can't stay on topic.

You are supporting my argument. There is no mention of the filibuster anywhere.

[Citation Needed]

There are explicitly listed supermajority requirements for other things listed. The idea that they had other supermajorities in mind but totes didn't feel like listing them is a pretty pathetic argument. Maybe you think George Soros snuck in and erased that part?

So you still haven't looked at Article 1 or the Senate rules?

Ah yes, you've returned to your central argument that everything they didn't explicitly ban is somehow part of their design. As mentioned before, that's an exceptionally dumb argument.

What's my central argument according to you?

It's funny that you believe asking for literally any evidence to support your position is 'moving the goalposts'. Then again, it's become abundantly clear that you can't, otherwise you wouldn't be flailing like this.

I'm not flailing, the filibuster is in the Senate rules. The Senate rules are constitutionally based in Article 1.

If the constitution was deliberately designed to include the filibuster as a part of senate procedure, please provide a single, solitary quote from any of the individuals involved in designing our government that says that.

"I vote for these senate rules" - Any of the quorum who voted for the first senate rules that included the filibuster, or else it wouldn't be there.

Since you seem to be fixated and now I'm curious there are two theories:

1806, Aaron Burr and the previous question motion

Not 1806, Aaron Burr and the previous question motion

Senate Rule XXII

My argument is not and has never been that there's an explicit link to the filibuster included in the US constitution. However, the link that establishes the constitutionality of of the Senate rules appears to be Article 1, Section 5... as I stated previously.

I can't help but wonder why you elected not to research this before your one man crusade against the filibuster, but perhaps it's linked to your inability to find one of Ms. Cox's speeches.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, clearly that's not what this election was about. The electorate (of which was about a 1/3 of what came out in 2012), voted for republican leaders but they voted for progressive policies. Clearly the American public doesn't like dems but they like their policies.

So...let me get this straight...the American public likes progressive (read Democratic) policies but voted Republicans into office because they think Republicans will do a better job of implementing these policies? I must have missed something here...please explain.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So...let me get this straight...the American public likes progressive (read Democratic) policies but voted Republicans into office because they think Republicans will do a better job of implementing these policies? I must have missed something here...please explain.

It's the denial talking. It's the same tired "didn't get the message out" leftists claim when they lose. It's never about their policies being wrong or voted against...

 

[fskimospy]

Because I never made that claim.



So me catching you trying to provide me with an argument is a non-sequitur? Are you serious right now?



So, again, why do you care so much?



So you do or don't care? The system fails closed rather than open.



Then why can't you stick to claims I've made rather than whatever you want to try to drag in to the discussion.



Those would be positive rights, and I'm pretty sure you don't understand the distinction.



You're the one who can't stay on topic.



[Citation Needed]



So you still haven't looked at Article 1 or the Senate rules?



What's my central argument according to you?



I'm not flailing, the filibuster is in the Senate rules. The Senate rules are constitutionally based in Article 1.



"I vote for these senate rules" - Any of the quorum who voted for the first senate rules that included the filibuster, or else it wouldn't be there.

Since you seem to be fixated and now I'm curious there are two theories:

1806, Aaron Burr and the previous question motion

Not 1806, Aaron Burr and the previous question motion

Senate Rule XXII

My argument is not and has never been that there's an explicit link to the filibuster included in the US constitution. However, the link that establishes the constitutionality of of the Senate rules appears to be Article 1, Section 5... as I stated previously.

I can't help but wonder why you elected not to research this before your one man crusade against the filibuster, but perhaps it's linked to your inability to find one of Ms. Cox's speeches.

You have repeatedly stated that our system of government was designed with the filibuster as part of it. You have been asked repeatedly to provide any evidence for this. So far you have been unable to do so. By the way, I knew you couldn't when I first asked for it, because anyone who knows anything about the topic knows you were full of shit.

It has never been a point of discussion as to whether or not the filibuster is constitutional.

You realize that when you write things people can go back and read them, right?

 

[ivwshane]

So...let me get this straight...the American public likes progressive (read Democratic) policies but voted Republicans into office because they think Republicans will do a better job of implementing these policies? I must have missed something here...please explain.

You did miss something, you missed the elections and the platform each party ran on.

Repubs- fear and hate

Dems- not Obama

It should be obvious to anyone that has paid any attention to what motivates Americans over the last decade or so. Hint: it's fear.

Remove the labels and allow people to vote on the policies themselves and guess what they choose? The progressive/liberal ideas.

 

[ivwshane]

It's the denial talking. It's the same tired "didn't get the message out" leftists claim when they lose. It's never about their policies being wrong or voted against...

Clueless idiot says what?

 

[ivwshane]

If I understand you both correctly, he is saying that the authority of the senate to create it's own rules is well established.

You are saying that there is no constitutional mandate for a filibuster.

You both appear to be correct.

Although it appears that the filibuster was created in accident.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2010/04/22-filibuster-binder

You have repeatedly stated that our system of government was designed with the filibuster as part of it. You have been asked repeatedly to provide any evidence for this. So far you have been unable to do so. By the way, I knew you couldn't when I first asked for it, because anyone who knows anything about the topic knows you were full of shit.

It has never been a point of discussion as to whether or not the filibuster is constitutional.

You realize that when you write things people can go back and read them, right?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You did miss something, you missed the elections and the platform each party ran on.

Repubs- fear and hate

Dems- not Obama

It should be obvious to anyone that has paid any attention to what motivates Americans over the last decade or so. Hint: it's fear.

Remove the labels and allow people to vote on the policies themselves and guess what they choose? The progressive/liberal ideas.

Keep dreaming. Clearly you are in shock as many leftists are and are just trying to spin/rationalize things. It's ok, it may take some time but you can get over it.

 

[ivwshane]

Keep dreaming. Clearly you are in shock as many leftists are and are just trying to spin/rationalize things. It's ok, it may take some time but you can get over it.

Shock? No you fucking moron I am not. In fact it was expected that the repubs would take back the senate and expand their hold in the house. Only the partisan hacks thought otherwise.

The only one spinning is you and your rationalizations for why repubs won (which again conflicts directly with what propositions in each state passed).

Stay stupid my friend!

 

[fskimospy]

If I understand you both correctly, he is saying that the authority of the senate to create it's own rules is well established.

You are saying that there is no constitutional mandate for a filibuster.

You both appear to be correct.

Although it appears that the filibuster was created in accident.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2010/04/22-filibuster-binder

That's what he's saying now. If you go back and look at his earlier posts he was clearly saying our system was designed to include the filibuster.

 

[ivwshane]

That's what he's saying now. If you go back and look at his earlier posts he was clearly saying our system was designed to include the filibuster.

Ah, I see it, quite the flip!

 

[schmuckley]

lol..@ all the AT P&N neo-com shills in their cubicles.
Go have some Starbucks Latte or something.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You did miss something, you missed the elections and the platform each party ran on.

Repubs- fear and hate

Dems- not Obama

It should be obvious to anyone that has paid any attention to what motivates Americans over the last decade or so. Hint: it's fear.

Remove the labels and allow people to vote on the policies themselves and guess what they choose? The progressive/liberal ideas.

ROFL. Your world view amazes me.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Hmmmm I thought that both the Republicans and Democrats ran on "Not Obama". Based on the results most voters did not believe the Democrats.

 

[bshole]

Hmmmm I thought that both the Republicans and Democrats ran on "Not Obama". Based on the results most voters did not believe the Democrats.

That doesn't make sense, his approval rating looks pretty good. To be honest, I have no idea why people would have a problem with Obama's presidency. It has been a truly great ride. No huge economic collapses, no draining wars, a steadily improving economy, the advent of socialized medicine, what's not to like?

 

[OutHouse]

Hey look, EverWrong just proclaimed it, so it must be true. Can we get DMC in here to second the motion and complete the circle?

Why don't you just shut the fuck up.

 

[cabri]

No, clearly that's not what this election was about. The electorate (of which was about a 1/3 of what came out in 2012), voted for republican leaders but they voted for progressive policies. Clearly the American public doesn't like dems but they like their policies.

Where were the policies on the ballot?

The people indicated that they did not like the way the Democrats were handling the government.

They could not do anything about Obama himself; so they eroded his support within Congress.

They want change from Obama's policies