I'm sensing a desire to put the entire Obama tenure in the Republican's lap. Not that I'm even a little surprised, but why?
The GOP in "control?" That's laughable. They haven't had the votes to control anything.
I don't think I've said anything against the GOP. I'm just recalling how badly they wanted to win last fall and what they said they were going to do.
as far as the 2nd line goes I guess the Dems haven't been in control either. I'm really losing my grasp of understanding as it relates to the House and the Senate. if having the majority of both doesn't put you in control of congress then what does? please enlighten us.
I'm sensing a desire to put the entire Obama tenure in the Republican's lap. Not that I'm even a little surprised, but why?
The GOP in "control?" That's laughable. They haven't had the votes to control anything.
Boehner can't control his own GOP HOR caucus. I believe Senator Ted Cruz has more influence in the House than Boehner. You do remember Ted orchestrated the closing of the government with his influence in the House. Cruz should be the next GOP candidate for POTUS. The country needs visionaries like Ted.
He's no back-bencher. What we need is about 250 Ted's.
I'm sensing a desire to put the entire Obama tenure in the Republican's lap. Not that I'm even a little surprised, but why?
The GOP in "control?" That's laughable. They haven't had the votes to control anything.
I don't think I've said anything against the GOP. I'm just recalling how badly they wanted to win last fall and what they said they were going to do.
as far as the 2nd line goes I guess the Dems haven't been in control either. I'm really losing my grasp of understanding as it relates to the House and the Senate. if having the majority of both doesn't put you in control of congress then what does? please enlighten us.
Enough votes to override a veto would be a good start.
How many bills has Obama vetoed?
That's a pretty high bar to meet for congress. I don't even know how to respond to that. I'm going to stay away from a snarky reply because it would do nothing for this conversation. anyone know how many veto proof congresses this country has had in its history?
I suppose I should clairify.....a Veto Proof Opposition Party.
[Edited on 5/27/2015 by LeglizHemp]
got to thinking and maybe you meant filibuster proof opposition, that is much more reasonable although still difficult.
I think the GOP's best bet is to start passing laws they support and let Obama veto them. it would help define this next election very well.
That's a pretty high bar to meet for congress. I don't even know how to respond to that. I'm going to stay away from a snarky reply because it would do nothing for this conversation. anyone know how many veto proof congresses this country has had in its history?
You need 2/3 vote in both Houses to override a veto so you can figure it out by checking the makeup of congress for all Presidents.
According to this archive doc from 1789 to 2004 only 106 veto's out of 1484 votes have been successful for a rate of 7.1% so it does not happen very often.
http://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/education/veto/background.pdf
You know it is funny the conservatives here were crowing about the GOP midterm victories yet now they are whining about not being able to get anything done for lack of having a veto override majority.
As I said back then and will repeat it again, the power is in the White House not in Congress.
[Edited on 5/27/2015 by Bill_Graham]
How many bills has Obama vetoed?
Since the GOP "takeover," that would be two. I guess the world would have been a far more wondrous place if the GOP would have been able to override those two vetos. That mean old Obama, ... obstructing everything.
Watching Rick Santorum announcing for President. Who'd have thunk it, he's a Union Man.
keep an eye out for a photoshoped picture of that speech from where he is talking about his father and holds up a chunk of coal and then the american flag. someone will photoshop out the flag and fill his hand with stacks of $100's. just a prediction.
[Edited on 5/27/2015 by LeglizHemp]
or better yet.....a bar of gold 😛
[Edited on 5/27/2015 by LeglizHemp]
Watching Rick Santorum announcing for President. Who'd have thunk it, he's a Union Man.
keep an eye out for a photoshoped picture of that speech from where he is talking about his father and holds up a chunk of coal and then the american flag. someone will photoshop out the flag and fill his hand with stacks of $100's. just a prediction.
[Edited on 5/27/2015 by LeglizHemp]
or better yet.....a bar of gold 😛
[Edited on 5/27/2015 by LeglizHemp]
____________________________________________________________________
You won't see Hillary holding an American Flag.
Handing out self-addressed stamped donation envelops and one of her many cellphones, yes.
Watching Rick Santorum announcing for President. Who'd have thunk it, he's a Union Man.
keep an eye out for a photoshoped picture of that speech from where he is talking about his father and holds up a chunk of coal and then the american flag. someone will photoshop out the flag and fill his hand with stacks of $100's. just a prediction.
[Edited on 5/27/2015 by LeglizHemp]
or better yet.....a bar of gold 😛
[Edited on 5/27/2015 by LeglizHemp]
____________________________________________________________________
You won't see Hillary holding an American Flag.
Handing out self-addressed stamped donation envelops and one of her many cellphones, yes.
Ah, yes. The whole Democratic candidate isn't as patriotic as we are because we love the flag more trick. Worked like a charm when they tried it with Obama. Keep working on it. I'm sure it will work time.
Watching Rick Santorum announcing for President. Who'd have thunk it, he's a Union Man.
keep an eye out for a photoshoped picture of that speech from where he is talking about his father and holds up a chunk of coal and then the american flag. someone will photoshop out the flag and fill his hand with stacks of $100's. just a prediction.
[Edited on 5/27/2015 by LeglizHemp]
or better yet.....a bar of gold 😛
[Edited on 5/27/2015 by LeglizHemp]
____________________________________________________________________
You won't see Hillary holding an American Flag.
Handing out self-addressed stamped donation envelops and one of her many cellphones, yes.Ah, yes. The whole Democratic candidate isn't as patriotic as we are because we love the flag more trick. Worked like a charm when they tried it with Obama. Keep working on it. I'm sure it will work time.
Repeat strategies & slogans will result in repeat results.
The troll's post is indicative of the lack of creativity w/in the GOP.
LOL all i ment was, just watch the speech or at least that part. at that exact moment you almost expect 2nd hand to have cash in it. i only said what i said because, to me, it was like a magician and what's in hand #2.
Watching Rick Santorum announcing for President. Who'd have thunk it, he's a Union Man.
keep an eye out for a photoshoped picture of that speech from where he is talking about his father and holds up a chunk of coal and then the american flag. someone will photoshop out the flag and fill his hand with stacks of $100's. just a prediction.
[Edited on 5/27/2015 by LeglizHemp]
or better yet.....a bar of gold 😛
[Edited on 5/27/2015 by LeglizHemp]
____________________________________________________________________
You won't see Hillary holding an American Flag.
Handing out self-addressed stamped donation envelops and one of her many cellphones, yes.
This thread is about GOP candidates, not Hillary. Try to keep up.
You know it is funny the conservatives here were crowing about the GOP midterm victories yet now they are whining about not being able to get anything done for lack of having a veto override majority.
I answered a question what I would consider "control" by the GOP. I replied with a tongue in cheek comment that a veto-proof majority would be a good start. Hardly whining.
Moreover, I'll be the last to whine about the government not getting things "done" and you should know that by now. My affinity for gridlock is well known here. Besides, most of what needs to get "done" is to reform/fix government programs that the government put in place. That tell you anything?
The last thing I want from the government is the belief they should run around and fix every problem, try to even things out, decide what's "fair," or decide who gets what and how much is enough.
I realize the existence of the Democratic party depends on those things, but that's not how the system was founded. The government needs to do less, not more, and do much better at the jobs it's supposed to be doing.
[Edited on 5/28/2015 by alloak41]
the system was founded on "all men are created equal" ,,,,oh never mind
the system was founded on "all men are created equal" ,,,,oh never mind
So you expect them to all end up equal.
The last thing I want from the government is the belief they should run around and fix every problem, try to even things out, decide what's "fair," or decide who gets what and how much is enough.
I realize the existence of the Democratic party depends on those things, but that's not how the system was founded. The government needs to do less, not more, and do much better at the jobs it's supposed to be doing.
[Edited on 5/28/2015 by alloak41]
The government grew more under Reagan and Bush II than under any president in history. Maybe you should look at our own party.
The last thing I want from the government is the belief they should run around and fix every problem, try to even things out, decide what's "fair," or decide who gets what and how much is enough.
I realize the existence of the Democratic party depends on those things, but that's not how the system was founded. The government needs to do less, not more, and do much better at the jobs it's supposed to be doing.
[Edited on 5/28/2015 by alloak41]
The government grew more under Reagan and Bush II than under any president in history. Maybe you should look at our own party.
I have looked. Many of them should be gone.
The last thing I want from the government is the belief they should run around and fix every problem, try to even things out, decide what's "fair," or decide who gets what and how much is enough.
the system was founded on "all men are created equal" ,,,,oh never mind
So you expect them to all end up equal.
I didn't write it, just quoting something you obviously do not believe in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal
http://www.vice.com/read/jeb-bush-solution-for-america-more-public-shaming-611
Jeb Bush's Solution for America: Public Shaming and 'A Sense of Ridicule'
June 12, 2015
By Kevin Lincoln
Contributor
Until recently, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush looked like the Republican Establishment's ace-in-the-hole choice for its 2016 presidential nomination—a throwback to the party pre–Tea Party heyday, when conservatives still believed in things like wiretaps and public schools and Sarah Palin was just a folksy babe from Alaska. Should the other lesser-known 2016 tryhards prove to be nothing more than the controversies they generated, the Republican Establishment would still have Jeb in the wings, safe in the knowledge that he has the name-recognition and political chops to be trotted out against Hillary Clinton at any time.
But with just a few days to go before Bush officially kicks off his campaign, the idea that he is the obvious Not Crazy Option for the GOP seems to have faded. A Washington Post headline announced Thursday that Bush's "Campaign Ran Off Course Before It Even Began." And a close reading of Bush's 1995 book Profiles in Character reveals that he's not quite the cozy centrist everyone seemed to think he was. Like an episode of Veep—in fact, there's an episode of Veep just like this—Bush now must answer for the strange things he and his co-writer put down way back when, including, as the Huffington Post's Laura Bassett pointed out, support for the idea of publicly shaming unwed mothers in the interest of public morality. You know, like they did in the Scarlet Letter.
"Infamous shotgun weddings and Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter are reminders that public condemnation of irresponsible sexual behavior has strong historical roots," Bush wrote, in a chapter called "The Restoration of Shame," which, among other things argues that a "sense of ridicule" would shame unmarried women into keeping their legs crossed.
Astonishingly, Bush has stood by that idea this week, telling reporters in Poland Thursday that being a single mom "hurts the prospects, limits the possibilities of young people being able to live lives of purpose and meaning," and defending his support of Florida's so-called Scarlet Letter Law, which, unbelievably, required single mothers who did not know their child's paternity to publish their sexual histories in the newspapers before putting the baby up for adoption. (The law has since been repealed.)
Bush also encouraged people to read the book. So we did. And unwed-mother shaming isn't the only alarming thing in there.
Let's start with his thoughts on divorce, a word that appears approximately 20 times in in Profiles in Character . Bush's general thesis is that divorce is one of a litany of social problems, including, as he lists on page 25, "out of wedlock births, domestic violence, material gratification, and excessive litigation," causing our "social structure [to buckle]."
Putting out of wedlock births in the same category as domestic violence—and excessive litigation?—is pretty weird, but it's hardly the first time a conservative politician's made that comparison. But things quickly devolve from there.
"Since 1960, the total number of divorces have increased by 322 percent. And since 1966, the number of children in Florida relying on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits, the primary component of welfare, has jumped 333 percent," Bush writes. A few pages later, he adds:
"During this time, government has assumed more and more responsibility for the welfare of our children and families. Social legislation in this area has included welfare, no-fault divorce, child protective services, the juvenile justice system, centralized education, government programs for child support, foster care and adoption. Yet the institutions that have evolved from this social legislation have presided over an increasing number of divorces and out of wedlock births. They have watched as AFDC benefits have become an attractive alternative to marriage."
To sum up, Bush is arguing here that welfare has become an "attractive alternative to marriage," and that, as a result, the moral and economic fabric of society is eroding. This sets up a very strange approach toward divorce, which Bush lays out a little later:
"In the 1970s, the no-fault divorce reform movement swept through the country. No-fault divorce abolished defenses to divorce and liberalized the grounds for dissolution of a marriage. But no-fault divorce quickly became a tool for those who used the law not to escape physical or mental cruelty but to pursue career dreams and trade in their wives for something more appealing."
So in Jeb Bush's world, people opt out of marriage to either a) pursue welfare benefits, or b) chase career dreams. Clearly, these two motivations are diametrically opposed, which speaks to a broader inconsistency that seems to pervade Bush's thinking about society and social structures. On the one hand, government is coddling and grotesque, spoiling citizens into sin and waste; on the other, people keep falling victim to their own desires and greed, and need government policy to protect them. Despite occasional lip service, issues like domestic violence and marital unhappiness are treated mostly as afterthoughts. And later, on page 106, Bush takes the concept to its extreme, blaming separation and divorce for rising rates of teen suicide.
Elsewhere in the book, Bush carries over his issues with "no fault" judgment into his consideration of criminal justice, turning the argument previously used to harangue divorcees on to America's enfeebled court system.
"No fault is a concept that has also permeated our criminal justice system," he writes. "Over the last three decades, the courts have permitted a number of no-fault defenses, such as insanity and sexual abuse, raised in the trial of the Menendez brothers. Now any criminal defendant can arm himself with an excuse from his past to exonerate a crime."
The idea that "any criminal defendant" would have a readymade excuse at hand seems to sharply contradict the number of criminal defendants who end up in jail—a rising tide that was already well into its upswing by the time Bush wrote his book. Back then, though, the Florida governor chalked up prosecutorial weakness to America's national victim complex.
"This victimization is reaching absurd levels. Look at how many criminals are the victims. Prisoner lawsuits are clogging our judicial system. We even consider a criminal's background before passing judgment. Was he abused? Was he poor? Were his parents drug addicts? Did he have an abnormal upbringing? All unfortunate circumstances, but no excuse for criminal behavior."
If you're wondering whether Bush takes this victim-blaming to its natural extension, I'll go ahead and spoil it for you: He does.
"People have gradually learned that being a victim gives rise to certain entitlements, benefits and preferences in society. These entitlements are bestowed with little or no corresponding responsibilities. The surest way to get something in today's society is to elevate one's status to that of the oppressed. Many of the modern victim movements, the gay rights movement, the feminist movement, the black empowerment movement and other movements based on social status or race have attempted to get people to view themselves as part of a smaller group deserving of something from society rather than viewing themselves as an integral part of a society in which they strive to make a contribution to the whole."
Bush goes on to enlist Martin Luther King, Jr. as sympathetic to his way of thinking, arguing that the civil rights leader envisioned a society in which people were judged "by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin — or sexual preference or gender or ethnicity." It's an impressively complete misreading of Dr. King's life and philosophy. In Bush's mind, the goal of feminism, gay rights, and racial justice movements—three of the most pivotal civil-rights fights in US history—is not equality, but special treatment and "benefits."
Whether any of this will be enough to convince the Republican Establishment that Jeb Bush may not be their safest presidential option remains to be seen. But it could certainly start dissuading those mythical moderates of the notion that the younger Bush scion is the sane centrist they've been waiting for.
In the end they all have to pander to the Tea Party extremists in the GOP if they wish to have any chance of gaining the nomination. I don't think any candidate that holds a centrist position will ever get the nomination.
It will be interesting to watch the candidates flip flop for the next 2 years as they try to appease the disparate factions within the GOP while trying to gain the nomination.
In the end they all have to pander to the Tea Party extremists in the GOP if they wish to have any chance of gaining the nomination. I don't think any candidate that holds a centrist position will ever get the nomination.
It will be interesting to watch the candidates flip flop for the next 2 years as they try to appease the disparate factions within the GOP while trying to gain the nomination.
________________________________________________________________________
Do you mean The Tea Party that kicked Democrat ass in the 2010 mid-terms and threw Pelosi out?
Apparently the Democrats are scared of The Tea Party because Obama used his IRS and Justice Department to violate their Constitutional Rights.
It will be interesting to watch the candidates flip flop for the next 2 years as they try to appease the disparate factions within the GOP while trying to gain the nomination.
The Republicans have a monopoly on flip-flopping. You'll never see a Democrat flip their position on anything.
It will be interesting to watch the candidates flip flop for the next 2 years as they try to appease the disparate factions within the GOP while trying to gain the nomination.
The Republicans have a monopoly on flip-flopping. You'll never see a Democrat flip their position on anything.
Every candidate flip flops to some extent but in the case of the GOP the candidates are stuck constantly changing their views to pander to the different factions in the party. Sadly I don't think a real centrist type candidate could ever get the GOP nomination these days. If they did I might even consider voting for them.
[Edited on 6/12/2015 by Bill_Graham]
It will be interesting to watch the candidates flip flop for the next 2 years as they try to appease the disparate factions within the GOP while trying to gain the nomination.
The Republicans have a monopoly on flip-flopping. You'll never see a Democrat flip their position on anything.
Every candidate flip flops to some extent but in the case of the GOP the candidates are stuck constantly changing their views to pander to the different factions in the party. Sadly I don't think a real centrist type candidate could ever get the GOP nomination these days. If they did I might even consider voting for them.
[Edited on 6/12/2015 by Bill_Graham]
______________________________________________________________________
Hillary is leading all candidates so far in flip flopping.
She was against homosexual marriage and now supports it.
She was for The War on Terror (and twice voted to approve it) and now is against it.
She was against illegal immigration but now is for those votes
The list grows every day.
Looks like Rubio is out. He'll never survive the recent revelations of the NY Times. FOUR traffic tickets and a "luxury speedboat!" We've heard of manufactured scandals before but looks like this is the real deal. Put a fork in him.
Looks like Rubio is out. He'll never survive the recent revelations of the NY Times. FOUR traffic tickets and a "luxury speedboat!" We've heard of manufactured scandals before but looks like this is the real deal. Put a fork in him.
That is the beauty of having a dozen other candidates to choose from. More room in the clown car for everyone else. 😛
Looks like Rubio is out. He'll never survive the recent revelations of the NY Times. FOUR traffic tickets and a "luxury speedboat!" We've heard of manufactured scandals before but looks like this is the real deal. Put a fork in him.
That is the beauty of having a dozen other candidates to choose from. More room in the clown car for everyone else. 😛
________________________________________________________________
alloak41, your post flew right over Graham’s head again.
