Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 26 Oct 2016, 5:32 am

still not buying it pal, a large majority in both houses and NOTHING got done except blaming Republicans is a joke that only die hard partisan liberals will accept. to the rest of us, it's pretty funny to watch you try and spin. May I ask a personal question? Do you ever get dizzy spinning as you do?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10773
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Oct 2016, 7:25 am

Tom
still not buying it pal, a large majority in both houses and NOTHING got done


If you actually read the post, you may actually now realize that your original and then follow up post said they had 2 years to get stuff done. Thats a lie that you are passing on...
You may also now know that they had a clear majority in both houses for 2 months and in that time the ACA was passed.
If you rememebr the procedures of the legislatures, you'll understand that it takes time, and effort for a bill to become a law even when you have majorities....
And regarding the ACA you may know that the lobbying by the various stakeholders in the health care industries was at a fever pitch. Its a very good reason why the ACA is a flawed law. In order to accomodate these stake holders, all of whom are very big donors to political campaigns of congressmen and senators, a lot of the law was written to ensure that these stale holders were always made whole in the resulting law. (And republicans continued to slow the process and attempt to obstruct at the behest of the same lobbyists for the same reasons.)
Now, if congressment and senators didn't need to rely on these industries for their political campaign war chests, perhaps the voters may have had a better law passed that more clearly met their needs.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 Oct 2016, 7:50 am

The more you say something doesn't change anything now does it?
Yet you keep trying to tell us the same thing, you keep trying to get by with semantics only. The simple thing is Democrats had a huge majority in both houses for two full years and tose Democrats did precious little to follow through on their promises. You point out they passed Obamacare, great ONE promise (sort of ...it wasn't exactly as promised now was it?) passed. That only proves the point, they COULD have done so yet they did not. Your answer? "well they didn't have the ability to make things filibuster proof" and that's your argument?

Instead of trying to argue your point, accept they could have done more and move on, they dropped the ball and tried to blame Republicans for what they failed to do and you try to sell us on that same party line. Do you have no mind of your own Ricky? Everything you post is 100% party line partisan nonsense, please stop and use your OWN opinions (if you have any)
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 Oct 2016, 10:56 am

I stumbled upon one of these questionnaires where you answer a mess of questions and they tell you who matches your stance best. I did answer very honestly (some of my answers are not very conservative but most are) and the result was a surprising 98% match to Trump. I can't stand him and wonder if this was some sort of campaign trick (it may very well be). I took it again answering as liberal as possible and it had me match Hillary 97% (Jill Stein 98%) so maybe it IS accurate???

It didn't take too long, I'm curious how it works for others here and again, if it's some "trick" I apologize, that was not my intent!

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016 ... n=q_us_tc2
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 28 Oct 2016, 8:01 am

fyi, my wife took this last night and she THINKS she is conservative (Based only on a few issues) matched (poorly) to Clinton
45% match for Hillary, 18% Trump

but an ad comes up when done, a link to "No More Hillary" (or something along those lines), but why did it match her to Hillary, It was interesting anyway.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10773
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Oct 2016, 9:43 am

tom
The simple thing is Democrats had a huge majority in both houses for two full years

No they did not.
What part of the following is difficult for you to understand?

The FACTS are:
Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.
Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie


Tom, I sometimes wonder how zombie lies exist. You are demonstrating how its possible.
Either you fail to read, or fail to comprehend or willfully ignore the facts.
I suppose there are many more like you around...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6619
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 28 Oct 2016, 10:04 am

RickyP,

You say that some of the voting members are "Blue-dog" democrats and count those against your totals for absolute control of House/Senate. Believe it or not there are some liberal Republicans that do vote with the Dems on some issues.
[url]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j- ... 02091.html[/url]

Yes, it is 2009, but you cannot play one side and say that all Democrats are not fully on side with the party without listing Republicans doing the same thing.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 28 Oct 2016, 10:18 am

Again Ricky, just because you say something over and over does not make it true.
I said "The Simple thing is Democrats had a huge majority for two full yers"
your reply "no they did not" and you go on to list how they did not have "total control"

Lets review your OWN link

Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans.


On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate

59% is a pretty huge majority now isn't it? (one vote from being filibuster proof is huge)

...Go ahead and say it again but your talking point partisan position is false no matter how many times you repeat it.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10773
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 29 Oct 2016, 1:05 pm

tom
I said "The Simple thing is Democrats had a huge majority for two full yers"
your reply "no they did not" and you go on to list how they did not have "total control"

If they had had a "huge majority" which I also demonstrated they dod not have, they could have gotten more things done than just the ACA. But because they did not have said huge majority, they could not.

reread this
Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.
Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.
"Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.
On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.
The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)
The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.


A "huge majority" doesn't mean anything if a minority of 41 senators can stop all legislation.
And it did.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 31 Oct 2016, 6:08 am

not true, they did not stop things that were not even attempted.
Deny all you want but the Dems were one to two votes away from absolute control and you want us to believe this is not a a huge majority? Yes it was, once again you can argue all you want but that facts are there, they certainly did have a huge advantage. Now you go on to say the Republicans stopped everything? Yet the Dems didn't even attempt to pass most of their promises. Gee they passed the ACA that was incredibly one sided even though (according to you) the GOP blocked everything. Saying it was so doesn't make it so no matter how many times you say it.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10773
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 31 Oct 2016, 7:08 am

Your right Tom. Some Stuff did get done...Here's a review from 2012
Here's a list:
Tax on Companies that ship jobs overseas- A bill that would have eliminated a tax break that companies get when they ship jobs overseas. Republicans blocked this, allowing companies to keep the tax break they receive when they ship jobs to other countries.
Political Ad disclosure bill- Would have required all donors to political campaigns to reveal themselves. Republicans blocked this, not once but twice.
Subpoena Power for the Committee investigating the BP Oil Spill – Give subpoena power to the independent committee responsible for investigating BP’s roll in the oil spill. Republicans attempted to block this.
The Small Business Jobs Act -would give LOCAL, community banks access to billions of dollars to loan to small businesses. Republicans blocked this, then attempted to block it a second time and failed.
The DREAM Act- Gives immigrant youth who were brought here as children a path to citizenship by earning a college degree or serving the military for 2 years. Republicans blocked this.
Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”- Would have repealed the law that forces gay and lesbian services members to lie about their sexuality and gives the military the right to discharge soldiers based on their sexuality. Republicans blocked this many times and Democrats were finally able to pass it with the support of just 2 Republicans.
Senator Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill – Makes it so that women raped overseas while working for foreign contractors have the right to have their case heard in an American court instead of having their case mediated by the company they work for. Only Republican men voted against this, but it passed.
Benefits for Homeless Veterans- Would have expanded benefits to homeless veterans and homeless veterans with children. Republicans blocked this.
Affordable Health Care For America Act- Prevents insurance companies from discriminating against you on the basis of “pre-existing conditions”. Requires that insurance companies spend 85 cents of every dollar that you pay on your actual health care. Limits health insurance companies profit margins. Republicans blocked this for months before it finally passed and have vowed to repeal it if they are elected.
Health Care for the 9/11 First Responders who got sick from being at Ground Zero- Would provide billions of dollars in health care to help the 9/11 First Responders who were at Ground Zero on 9/11 and are now sick because of it. Republicans blocked this.
The Jobs Bill- Offsets the payroll tax for 1 year for companies that hire new employees, or people receiving unemployment insurance. Also gives other tax incentives to companies hiring new employees. Republicans attempted to block this.
Wall Street Reform- Puts stricter regulations on the banks, preventing them from becoming “too big to fail”. Curbs reckless spending practices that caused the banking crisis. Republicans attempted to block this.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act- Pumped billions of dollars into state and local Governments to prevent us from sinking into a second Great Depression. Republicans opposed this but now want to take credit for the parts of it that we know are successful.
Oil Spill Liability- Raises the liability on what companies can be made to pay to clean up after an oil spill. Republicans blocked this.
Immigration Reform- Republican suggested comprehensive immigration reform until Obama supported it. Now they’re rabidly opposed to it and even voted against their own legislation. Republicans blocked this.
Unemployment extension bill HR-4213- Would provide additional aid to the millions of Americans still on unemployment who are just trying to support themselves and their families. Republicans blocked this bill for 8 weeks before it finally passed. Republicans blocked this for 8 weeks before it finally passed.
Fair Pay Act of 2009- Also called the Lily Ledbetter bill. Requires that women receive equal compensation to men for doing the same work. Republicans attempted to block this.
No permanent military bases in Afghanistan.
Report identifying hybrid or electric propulsion systems and other fuel-saving technologies for incorporation into tactical motor vehicles.
Protection of child custody arrangements for parents who are members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of a contingency operation.
Improvements to Department of Defense domestic violence programs.
Department of Defense recognition of spouses of members of the Armed Forces.
Department of Defense recognition of children of members of the Armed Forces.
Enhancements to the Troops-to-Teachers Program.
Fiscal year 2011 increase in military basic pay.
Improving aural protection for members of the Armed Forces.
Comprehensive policy on neurocognitive assessment by the military health care system.
Authority to make excess nonlethal supplies available for domestic emergency assistance.
And those were just some of the progressive provisions. On the conservative side, there are these, and more:

Prohibition on the use of funds for the transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Prohibition on the use of funds to modify or construct facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Prohibition on use of funds to give Miranda warnings to Al Qaeda terrorists.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50177069
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 31 Oct 2016, 11:17 am

yep, no kidding you can pick some things but this is what maybe a dozen things only? We can point to the Bush era when Democrats blocked just as many. The Dems had a huge majority, that's a FACT. They passed precious little and brought forward few of their promises either. Also, it's pretty freaking funny how you include things that were in fact passed as well as things that were "attempted" to be blocked. Your example of things blocked is pretty slim (less than half your "examples" that's pretty funny listing a failure to block what they wanted as some proof how Democrats hands were tied isn't it?). Again, because you say it over and over, it still doesn't come true.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2810
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 01 Nov 2016, 9:05 am

Trump now estimated to have a 1 in 4 chance to win...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... 6-forecast
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2810
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 01 Nov 2016, 12:49 pm

By the way, what I conjectured about the dubiousness of Trump's tax write-off turns out to be essentially correct.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytim ... ent=safari
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 02 Nov 2016, 10:09 am

freeman3 wrote:By the way, what I conjectured about the dubiousness of Trump's tax write-off turns out to be essentially correct.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytim ... ent=safari


Did he break the law?