Will Obama now work with republicans?

[Londo_Jowo]

I guess the Democrats that tried their best to distance themselves from Obama didn't see that chart.

 

[cabri]

That doesn't make sense, his approval rating looks pretty good.

Up until 15 months ago.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

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?

Maybe you should use more recent data instead of from May 2013

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

 

[bshole]

Maybe you should use more recent data instead of from May 2013

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Well fuck them, they obviously haven't been paying attention. Jesus Christ, what the hell more do they want?

 

[ivwshane]

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

Your ignorance isn't my problem. Feel free to educate yourself on the propositions that passed in each state that are typically dem/rep issues.

 

[ivwshane]

Up until 15 months ago.

Wrong again! Obamas numbers have been consistently in the low 40's, they haven't dropped like a rock like some of the pundits claim.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html#polls

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php

Now compare that to the job approval of congress.

 

[tweaker2]

Wrong again! Obamas numbers have been consistently in the low 40's, they haven't dropped like a rock like some of the pundits claim.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html#polls

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php

Now compare that to the job approval of congress.

It's been my standard reply to any conservative who went out of their way to mention to me how low Obama's approval ratings are. Things pretty much quiet down after mentioning that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's been my standard reply to any conservative who went out of their way to mention to me how low Obama's approval ratings are. Things pretty much quiet down after mentioning that.

If last Tuesday was any indication....voters are working on that issue it seems to me.

 

[tweaker2]

If last Tuesday was any indication....voters are working on that issue it seems to me.

Good point.:thumbsup:

 

[shira]

Obama has broken that oath so many times it's not even funny.

What planet are you from?

You do know it was Republicans that voted to abolish slavery AND The Civil Rights act?

Democrats opposed both, strongly.

Get ready for a lot of veto overrides and possible impeachment!

In the end,it's checks and balances working the way they should.

Repubs voted to abolish the Civil Rights act? Color me not surprised.

 

[Knowing]

You have repeatedly stated that our system of government was designed with the filibuster as part of it.

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

Quote it then, I'll even help you:

I'll just leave this here, and this. Judging from some of the threads over at DU during last night's implosion, they blame him for a fair bit as well.

So you think it is an unfortunate oversight that our government was designed to grind to a halt when it becomes dysfunctional? Interesting. Also, you said "writers," I was unaware that Ramsey Cox was a Bush speechwriter... it's not in her bio.


I learned something about my HVAC system the other day. When the burner fails to fire (or thinks it fails to fire due to a sensor crusted with deposits) 3 times the blower fan comes on for 45 seconds to a minute and a half. At first I didn't understand this behavior, after all if the furnace needs to fire then the thermostat is calling for heat... why move around cold air? But then I realized that if the system thinks it's broken then the system thinks that it has just purged a number of therms worth of gas in to a confined space. With this stunning realization I was comforted that the system values my not blowing up more than my temporary discomfort. Thanks for reading this.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/g_three_sections_with_teasers/origins.htm

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...ogether_-_Joint_Rules_of_House_and_Senate.htm

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_procedure#American_procedures

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-the-roman-senate-and-could-wreck-ours/72776/

If your education in civics omitted this then you should probably revisit it. The filibuster isn't new, given the things that were deliberately and explicitly changed from the British way of doing things one would think that they would have omitted the filibuster from the rules we adopted if they thought as you did.

I also didn't see an update on Ms. Cox and I haven't found any reference to her leanings let alone history as a speechwriter.

My links support my belief that the filibuster was adopted as part of the parliamentary procedures we inherited from the British. My assertion was that our government was "designed" to "grind to a halt" when it becomes dysfunctional. Still I'm wondering why you allegedly bothered to read so much when you don't care.


If you'd like to have yourself debate your own puppet then be my guest.

I shouldn't have to point out to you how bad an argument it is to say that everything not deliberately prohibited is thereby positively endorsed.

Where have I seen this sort of language before?

Oh! That's right:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I'm sure you're about to attempt to school me on how there's a difference between citizens and the rights that are never invoked on their behalf and the senate rules which are apparently unnecessarily arbitrary in that they totes didn't want the filibuster which was foisted on them by the time traveling Koch brothers. I'm so certain that your extensive reading of the US constitution you managed to make it through the very first article to at least the second clause of the 5th section where it clearly reads:

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

So again, I'm wondering where the evidence is that the filibuster was shoehorned in there like the pesky comma in the 2nd amendment when the Constitution specifically describes the determination of the parliamentary procedures (including quorum and the filibuster).

The senate adopted rules from the British parliament, if the filibuster was so offensive to them certainly you could find evidence that they didn't want it. Perhaps you should start with debates about cloture and why they had debates about cloture instead of debates about getting rid of "talking bills to death" which has history going back to the Roman republic.



Incredible moving goalposts. Still no mention of how this unfortunate oversight managed to survive for 2000 years of world governance or more than 200 years of US governance without being removed, or why the founders didn't specifically exclude it when granting the Congress the authority to determine their rules. This is very odd considering that they had the foresight to specifically enumerate the powers of congress (but seriously, the only important ones are interstate commerce and the welfare clause because they can be used to justify anything.)

Have you found Ms. Cox's speechwriting credentials yet? Take all the time you need.

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.

I'm pretty sure that's all my posts in this thread, I've also done you the service of bolding the word "filibuster." So please, show me where I claimed that the filibuster was part of our government in any way other than it's adoption as part of the senate rules supported by Article 1, Section 5. I'm also waiting for even one of Ms. Cox's speeches for Bush.

 

[senseamp]

Obama will troll the Republicans, not work with them. He is not running anymore. GOP will be defending a ton of seats in House districts won in low turn out 2014 midterms, and Senate seats won in low turn out 2010 midterms. But 2016 is a high-turnout presidential year. Obama will seed discontent and dysfunction in the GOP and watch them self-destruct over it. Amnesty will be step 1. GOP will have to decide. Are they going to do nothing, and have their base give up on them for 2016, or are they going to throw and tantrum and alienate Hispanic voters in battleground states. Their choice, but win win for Democrats. Democrats are only defending NV and CO in 2016, both of which have sizable Hispanic populations. Plus it's going to be "lame duck" Obama taking the heat. For GOP it's a lose-lose proposition.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Obama will troll the Republicans, not work with them. He is not running anymore. GOP will be defending a ton of seats in House districts won in low turn out 2014 midterms, and Senate seats won in low turn out 2010 midterms. But 2016 is a high-turnout presidential year. Obama will seed discontent and dysfunction in the GOP and watch them self-destruct over it. Amnesty will be step 1. GOP will have to decide. Are they going to do nothing, and have their base give up on them for 2016, or are they going to throw and tantrum and alienate Hispanic voters in battleground states. Their choice, but win win for Democrats. Democrats are only defending NV and CO in 2016, both of which have sizable Hispanic populations. Plus it's going to be "lame duck" Obama taking the heat. For GOP it's a lose-lose proposition.

Well it does seem the Democrats are the same as the Republicans. Party first. Imagine that.

 

[piasabird]

Obama is incapable of anything except being a dictator. I think he is too stupid to actually lead the country. I am not too sure this country wants to go in the direction that Obama is going. However, the Republicans are not exactly conservatives either. Republican will probably get nothing done. I would be happy for gridlock in congress. Nothing Congress ever does is good for this country.

 

[senseamp]

Well it does seem the Democrats are the same as the Republicans. Party first. Imagine that.

You don't get to implement policy, no matter how good, until you win elections, and you don't bring a knife to a gun fight in politics.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I think one of the problems some of us have with bold takeaways from mid terms elections -- in any year -- is the low turnout. Less than 50% of eligible voters participating in an election hardly represents a majority vote on anything.

Which is why the Republican's bold claims about voter mandates are pretty silly.

 

[tweaker2]

I think one of the problems some of us have with bold takeaways from mid terms elections -- in any year -- is the low turnout. Less than 50% of eligible voters participating in an election hardly represents a majority vote on anything.

Which is why the Republican's bold claims about voter mandates are pretty silly.

That's something that's been on my mind since the 2010 elections. What I'm now waiting for is the same over-reach, the passing out of entrenching shovels, chainsaws, a whole lot of chest pounding and Tarzan bellowing to signal the next round of how the Repubs can really make asses of themselves while inebriated by the fragrance of hollow victories.

 

[CitizenKain]

Obama is incapable of anything except being a dictator. I think he is too stupid to actually lead the country.

Saddens me to think there are people in this country stupid enough to believe that, and have avoided drowning themselves in the shower.

 

[EZS]

<2nd account, banned>

 

[ivwshane]

My links support my belief that the filibuster was adopted as part of the parliamentary procedures we inherited from the British. My assertion was that our government was "designed" to "grind to a halt" when it becomes dysfunctional. Still I'm wondering why you allegedly bothered to read so much when you don't care.

You are wrong, no matter how you slice it. You can't say something was designed a certain way when that certain way was added 100 years later. Let's also ignore the fact that the filibuster was originally an accident.

 

[fskimospy]

Quote it then, I'll even help you:

I'm pretty sure that's all my posts in this thread, I've also done you the service of bolding the word "filibuster." So please, show me where I claimed that the filibuster was part of our government in any way other than it's adoption as part of the senate rules supported by Article 1, Section 5. I'm also waiting for even one of Ms. Cox's speeches for Bush.

Your second post does a pretty good job of it. Unless your new argument is that by "designed" you meant "accidentally changed by people years after the fact". (Your declarations that the founding fathers meant to leave the filibuster in notwithstanding.)

Ooh, is this going to be another one of those threads where you try to escape your own wrongness by insisting that everyone adopt a wildly implausible reading of your posts? I have enjoyed in the past when you've done that, as it's basically arguing "I'm not wrong, I'm just unable to communicate my thoughts in a rational manner."

You said something dumb. Just own it and move on. This flailing just makes things worse.

 

[boomerang]

I think one of the problems some of us have with bold takeaways from mid terms elections -- in any year -- is the low turnout. Less than 50% of eligible voters participating in an election hardly represents a majority vote on anything.

Which is why the Republican's bold claims about voter mandates are pretty silly.

Whether 10% of eligible voters voted or 100% voted makes no difference. We can't give any weight to the desires of those that choose not to be involved in the process. They sat it out. Their choice was that they don't give a shit. The mandate comes from the turnover. The changing of a political office from one party to the other.

Obama told the nation that he "heard" those that didn't vote. What exactly did he hear?

 

[FerrelGeek]

Obama is deluding himself in thinking that the 2/3 all support him; his narcissism won't allow him to imagine any other possibility. The 2/3 are either too lazy to get off their butts and vote or are so beaten down by our current system that they couldn't care less who wins cuz they know either side won't do anything good for the country. But I stand by what I said earlier, if you don't vote, sucks to be you.

 

[HTFOff]

Which is why the Republican's bold claims about voter mandates are pretty silly.

Poppycock.

There was no magical formula to the flogging that took place tuesday. Republicans brought nothing groundbreaking to the table. It's for this reason that it was a "mandate". Rethuglican gov in Maryland? Illinois? West Va. turning in to a red state? Bwahahaha. Way to break the cycle, Blue tea. Democrats very much SUCK every bit as worse than "rethuglicans" at governing and that showed tuesday. Deal with that.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Both Obama and McConnell are arrogant asses so.........

The zealot party dipshits on here will continue to drink their Koolaid though claiming one party is better than the other.