Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

no debate for you!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
    got it backwards. dems swing from left to center
    Hardly, both Hillary and Obama espoused things like voter ID requirements, only minor changes to Health Care, anti-gay marriage, etc. Only when a candidate is chosen from either party do they swing back to the left.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Johnykbr View Post
      Our nation is so fixed on the foundation of two major parties that the destruction of one (either one) is nothing to be celebrated. The last time it happened, the Whigs, it was responsible for one of the primary contributions to the Civil War. What we should wish for is a splintering of both parties so that all the groups have representatives elected to eliminate the caucuses.
      One thing at a time.

      Take the win while we can.

      One down - one to go.

      Comment


      • #18
        Lolz.

        Wapo predicts 82% chance of Republicans controlling both House and Senate come January.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ate-wait-what/

        Meanwhile, short-bussers prophesy the end of the party.

        Our system will always be dominated by two parties. It's the nature of our particular beast. If one dies, another will quickly take its place. It's maybe not ideal, but it's no worse than any of the more parliamentary outcomes I've ever seen.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
          Lolz.

          Wapo predicts 82% chance of Republicans controlling both House and Senate come January.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ate-wait-what/

          Meanwhile, short-bussers prophesy the end of the party.

          Our system will always be dominated by two parties. It's the nature of our particular beast. If one dies, another will quickly take its place. It's maybe not ideal, but it's no worse than any of the more parliamentary outcomes I've ever seen.
          I hope that doesn't happen. I mean the repubs will use that power to not do a damn thing and still get paychecks...oh wait..

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
            I hope that doesn't happen. I mean the repubs will use that power to not do a damn thing and still get paychecks...oh wait..
            Uh huh.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4876291.html

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
              pass a budget that will stall in the house until the rich get taxed less?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
                pass a budget that will stall in the house until the rich get taxed less?
                So it's ok for the Senate to take a smoke/pancake break because the House won't pass it anyway. But the House should be doing all sorts of fixing of everything because... because.

                Epic sensemaking skills you have there.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                  So it's ok for the Senate to take a smoke/pancake break because the House won't pass it anyway. But the House should be doing all sorts of fixing of everything because... because.

                  Epic sensemaking skills you have there.
                  lookup the number of filibusters by the repubs and come back and post the number.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
                    lookup the number of filibusters by the repubs and come back and post the number.
                    What should I look up? How hard your guys work to earn Four Pinocchios inflating filibuster counts?

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...e11_story.html

                    Obama busted for false facts on Republicans’ filibusters

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                      What should I look up? How hard your guys work to earn Four Pinocchios inflating filibuster counts?

                      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...e11_story.html

                      Obama busted for false facts on Republicans’ filibusters
                      yeah his number was off. care to post the real number or are you gonna hide all day?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
                        yeah his number was off. care to post the real number or are you gonna hide all day?
                        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ver-400-times/

                        If you want to measure the extent of “blocking” in the Senate, you first need to look at the number of actual votes on cloture. That adds up to 309 since 2007. Then you have to look at figure for “cloture invoked,” which means that the Democrats prevailed in a vote. That adds up to 189 — a success rate for the Democrats of better than 60 percent.
                        Subtracting 189 from 309, that means 120 Senate actions have been blocked during McConnell’s tenure as minority leader.

                        By contrast, during the eight years that Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) was minority leader (not counting a brief period in 2001), here’s how the statistics work out. There were 210 votes in that period, and cloture was invoked 67 times. Thus Democrats blocked 143 actions in that period–meaning the Republican majority had a success rate of only 32 percent.
                        It's a bull**** line you kids have been flinging around for years.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          What dems did is realize that a huge segment of the population didn't understand how Congress works.

                          They have young voters thinking republicans made up the fillibuster, like it was never a tool before.

                          Hopefully the repubs get enough power in Congress to make the dems fillibuster, vote not to end debate, and even some vetos maybe. It will be good for the young voters to see how both parties approach being the minority.

                          Obama does just lie and say whatever he wants. But as we get closer and closer to his terms ending the media will start to report on it more and more.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            always the "liberal media"

                            Had nothing to do with a Presidential Candidate essentially saying 47% of the people in the US and useless takers... or how he was going to cut spending by elimating loopholes, but was unwilling to be specific about which ones...

                            The R's lost because their campaign was dark, cold, negative and lacked any kind of hope or optimism.

                            But I am sure it was the "Liberal Media"

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by B-Large View Post
                              always the "liberal media"

                              Had nothing to do with a Presidential Candidate essentially saying 47% of the people in the US and useless takers... or how he was going to cut spending by elimating loopholes, but was unwilling to be specific about which ones...

                              The R's lost because their campaign was dark, cold, negative and lacked any kind of hope or optimism.

                              But I am sure it was the "Liberal Media"
                              I agree with most of this. Except the part about "more specifics"

                              Campaigns are always by and large 99.9% Candy Canes and Unicorn Rainbows. The other .1% is mostly just bull****.

                              Obama was a connoisseur of lofty words and platitudes on his way to the top. But whenever he did get specific, it was pretty much always just untrue (at least once measured up against his actual Presidency)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                                http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ver-400-times/



                                It's a bull**** line you kids have been flinging around for years.
                                spouting rubbish as usual. try again.

                                "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

                                As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was about to execute the "nuclear option" -- changing the chamber’s rules to eliminate a 60-vote supermajority for executive nominations -- his office released a graphic designed to show how Senate Republicans had used filibusters to target a disproportionate number of President Barack Obama’s nominees.

                                The graphic -- which quickly went viral among Democrats using social media -- showed a pie chart with the following caption. "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

                                Reid’s graphic said that "in the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."

                                The figures are solidly sourced to the Congressional Research Service, but the graphic’s wording was wrong -- an error that Reid’s office acknowledged after we contacted them, and for which they released a corrected version of the graphic. Meanwhile, the question of how many pre-Obama presidents should be included is a bit murkier. The CRS report doesn’t incorporate data prior to 1949, but there’s evidence that blocked nominations were rare to nonexistent before that.

                                Since the revised numbers actually increase the accuracy of Reid's underlying point -- that blockages under Obama have accounted for a disproportionate share of those undertaken in United States history -- we rate the claim Mostly True.

                                http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ees-have-been/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X