Congressional Republicans just promised to deny Hillary Clinton any honeymoon period and will continue their stated "Party over Country" policy of total obstruction of our Democratic President.
To make their blockade more effective, they also promise to investigate Clinton for everything under the sun. In other words they promise to stop as much Congressional action as possible for the next eight years.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/ … index.html
Does this exhibit the American Values they "say" are very important to them?
I thought that they were the ones that claim to more closely follow the prescriptions provided by the Constitution.
How dare they say that they will obstruct Clinton in her duty to replace justices on the Supreme Court? Just who do they think they are? People accuse me of being partisan, WELL, what is this all about? When have the Democrats dare to circumvent constitutional provisions for a naked political purpose? Yes, conservatives, if your candidate loses, tradition is that the successful opponent is not to be stymied in the tools that he or she has necessary to perform the job for which entrusted.
Just another reason I distrust Conservatives in general and Republicans in particular.
Does that mean those you elect to legislate and who purposefully shirks that duty is a good thing.
When I vote for a Congressman I know his ideas won't agree with those on the other side of the aisle, BUT, I, like the founders, expect them to compromise, not obstruct.
Sorry, I'm having a hard time visualizing liberals compromising on anything.
I can see why you can't if your news is only from those extremely biased sites you photos are from. If those are your only sources, then you are condemned forever to lack of visualization.
I agree. I haven't seen much on the democratic side pushing for comprise. Obama had an agenda and wanted everyone to rubber stamp it. This is politics as usual in Washington. Put a republican at the helm and it won't change. Just different people doing the same old thing.
When virtually every piece of legislation that comes out of the House contained a poisoned pill of Social legislation which they Know the Ds cannot accept, how CAN they compromise? Why doesn't the House stop making their bills DOA when they send it to the Senate. Killing Planned Parenthood is one good example.
And No, it isn't politics as usual, This was not the way it worked from 1933 to 1996 when the far Right began their campaign to kick out most of the moderate and liberal Republicans. The more the GOP became dominated by the far-Right and then the Tea Party, compromise began to decline until were are where we are today.
You complain about R's making all legislation a poison pill to D's. While conveniently forgetting the continued growth of the entitlement, nanny state that the D's push. You forget the barrage of gun control laws, you forget the biggest entitlement in the history of the world with Obamacare. You forget Clinton saying abortions right up to birth. And let's not forget Obama's effort to keep virtually all illegals in the country, not even allowing local law enforcement to deport them. All poison pills to R's, but those kinds of things are to be accepted, aren't they? "Compromise", as long as it is the Republican party taking the poison, right?
That appears to be the problem. And it's slowly poisoning this country. All while the left and the right posture with self righteous indignation that they can't have their way, unfettered.
It is business as usual in Washington. You can lament the fact that the right has moved in a more conservative direction but that ignores the move by left. Most of us are not died in the wool left or right and these types of questions you pose are very indicative of why those of us trying to see both sides and knowing a balanced approach which takes into account costs to treasury and loss of freedoms all juxtaposed against what is best for the populace (not simply a fortunate few) get more frustrated. Why in the world can you expect Congress to compromise when you, yourself, don't appear to grasp the concept?
I actually live in the middle and get almost as many on the far-Left yelling at me as I do on the far-Right which tells me I am balanced in my views, some liberal, some conservative.
The fact is Live, I haven't seen one liberal, or even moderate view coming from you so far. Can you identify some, especially liberal views?
In 2015, 37% on the Right, 35% Moderates, and a mere 24% Left. I am in the 35% while, based on your writings, you are part of the 37%. I was a moderate (fiscally) - liberal (socially) Republican until 1994 when the Republican Party disappeared and was effectively replaced by the Conservative Party.
As to "compromise". We aren't making legislation are we? When two politicians comprising, they aren't changing the way they believe; instead they refuse to be ideologically pure when it comes to putting America first. That is the way compromise works, if you didn't know
A liberal view? I believe we need a national health care plan. Everyone deserves basic medical care, at the least. Or, we need to regulate the costs of goods and services. Health care is outrageous, medicine is being doled out to us by modern day robber barons.
What did we get from Obama? The industry and Congress bellied up to the barrels filling the bellies with everything they thought was profitable for them, at the expense of the rest of us. No one represented us at that feast.
I believe in an affordable education system but one geared to the reality that not everyone needs a four year degree. We need a reasonable approach to outfit Americans for realistic jobs we need filled.
We need to accept that our greed is killing our ability to employ our citizens and also poisoning them. We lament big corporations lack of concern for workers and consumers but we demand a constant supply of cheap products. We'll spend pennies as opposed to nickels on foreign made goods that could easily be made here, employing our neighbors but we would rather have closed factories and depressed areas than spend a few more cents on goods to ensure they aren't.
Does any of that qualify?
Everything could be achieved if both sides accepted a need and worked together to find ways to achieve reasonable goals but it would take real leadership and real commitment by all of us to get there.
I'd also be curious which of my writings places me, in your opinion, to the right. I'm vocally pro choice. I'm vocally supportive of individual rights, not government control. I guess wanting individual freedom may appear to you to be right. I suppose supporting the right to bear arms throws me to the right in your eyes but I think reasonable regulations are not out of bounds. However, reasonable to a gun owner and reasonable to someone who has no clue on the issue are not one in the same.
And I do think consistent flouting of our laws by a politician should render them unsuitable for office. I guess that makes me to the right also. I've seen criminals repeatedly reelected in cities. These are usually democrats so I get that respect for the law is not high on a democrat's list of priorities.
And yes, I do know how compromise works but your opinions, as stated on these forums, do not lead me to believe that you do.
I must repeat myself. Holding in opinion about something is DISTINCTLY different from willingness to compromise; I am perfectly willing to give a little if the other side is as well.
OK, I stand corrected on where you stand in the political spectrum. But is states like these, some of which contradicts what you just stated that lead me to think otherwise..
1. "While conveniently forgetting the continued growth of the entitlement, nanny state that the D's push. You forget the barrage of gun control laws, you forget the biggest entitlement in the history of the world with Obamacare. You forget Clinton saying abortions right up to birth. And let's not forget Obama's effort to keep virtually all illegals in the country, "
2. "I agree. I haven't seen much on the democratic side pushing for comprise. Obama had an agenda and wanted everyone to rubber stamp it".
First, what I am NOT forgetting is the continued growth in the population tied with the rapidly increasing (until this year) of income inequality as well as the rapidly aging of our population drive the increase in growth of entitlement payments. Means-tested social welfare programs stopped growing in REAL terms in 1997, a year after the restructured welfare system was made law by Clinton signing the bill crafted by Republicans (that is called compromise).
The use of the term "nanny state" stamps you with the right-wing, social Darwinist label for they are the only ones who use that term.
Your exaggeration of "barrage of gun control laws" also shows a far-right tilt. Why, because the FACTS are that since 1995, with a exception of a few large cities, gun safety laws have been on the decline, both Federally and at the State level. Only three States have very strict, legal, gun safety laws. By far the majority of States have lax gun safety laws that I have demonstrated in other hubs leads to higher death rates than otherwise would be with stricter laws.
Again your exaggeration that ACA is the "biggest entitlement in the history of the world". In fact, that is demonstrably NOT true; a sign of extreme Right or Left position; that is what extremists do, exaggerate and fabricate.
I didn't forget that "Clinton saying [said] abortions right up to birth for one simple reason ... She Never Said It and does not believe it. Show me a quote please
And about forgetting PBO's "effort to keep virtually all illegals in the country, " flies in the face of actual Facts. In other words this is a technique extremists use, fabrication. The Fact is PBO has deported more illegals than "more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century." See http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-d … d=41715661
Even a casual look at PBO's approach to Congress clearly shows a hands-off approach where he outlines his policies and let the Democrats, for the short period they had actual power in Congress (once the tea party took over the House and Mitchell employed the filibuster like it has never been used before ... or since). His hands-off approach, which was counter to the America's political history since John Adams, and very inefficiently as it turned out, appalled me and was on of PBO's weaknesses.
I'm pretty sure you weren't quoting me on the first one. Did you reply to the wrong post?
"The Fact is PBO has deported more illegals than "more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century."
Nice spin, and it might even be true. But just as true is that he has deported just a little more (300,000) than were deported from 2000 to 2008, when the depression was sending them home by the million anyway.
I take it you didn't click on the link, it was the first in a series that popped up when I Googled it. It is why the Latino community has nicknamed PBO as "Deporter-in-Chief" which was not a love poem; try Googling that phrase.
Yeah, I did. And read it - it has the same spin. Does that make it untrue that he has done little more than was done during the recession when there weren't nearly as many here?
Or should we ignore that and instead concentrate on years when very little was done because the problem wasn't nearly as large? I'll say that I was surprised at BO's numbers, but that doesn't change that he hasn't really done much to address the problem. The number of illegals in the country hasn't fallen hardly at all since he took office or since prior to the recession.
I can't fight against the obsession that "if Obama did then it wasn't good". Fortunately you are in the vast minority.
As to the article, please point out the spin. They just stated facts as best I can tell.
More facts for you (you really ought to research more rather take right-wing "news" sources as gospel. IN FACT, the number off illegal mexican immigrants has FALLEN over 600,000 since 2009
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … n-the-u-s/
The article gave a stat that clearly shows Obama as the hero of the illegal problem. While "forgetting" to include a very pertinent stat that clearly shows he has done almost nothing anyone else did. It's called "spin" when only half the pertinent information is given in order to convince the reader that a falsehood is actually true.
"IN FACT, the number off illegal mexican immigrants has FALLEN over 600,000 since 2009"
Your point? So far I haven't mentioned a nationality as it isn't germane to the question. Is it just more irrelevant spin to convince a reader that illegals are far fewer in number than 2009? I do notice that it takes pretty much the same tack - touting the lack of Mexican illegals while quietly saying that those from other nations have increased. It also says that the number in the country has stabilized: Obama has done nothing to decrease the number of illegals feeding at the American trough.
That is business as usual for politics , you mean you didn't learn that in the Clinton and Obama years?
Yes, that is true for the Obama years 3 - 8, the GOP kept to their promise to destroy PBO and if that hurts America, so be it. Helping America comes in second to conservative (not GOP) ideology.
No true for Clinton. After failing to do so by shutting down the government which cost America billions, Gingrich decided to play nice with Clinton and they were able to get a lot done; some good like the social assistance reform and some terrible like the law that destroyed Glass-Steagal which removed the last big obstacle to the great recession that followed 8 years later.
So, it is not business as usual. The GOP obstructionism since losing the Senate during Bush is unique in American history.
Hey, Esoteric, what is the story about GOP obstructionism regarding the President's perogative to nominate her choices to fill Supreme Court vacancies?
McConnell tells Obama that 'his' senate felt obligated to not allow him to fill the vacancy left by Scalia. The reason? He felt that this pivotal appointment should be permitted only by the next President as being morerepresentative of the will of the people? Obama nominates a relative moderate to attempt a compromise with the GOP, but they would not hear of it.
Now, I say, 'screw the GOP'.
So, what is it now? Now that Clinton may well be on the way of riding high on a historical landslide, Cruz, McCain and others are openly expressing defiance, stating that they will not consider any nominee brought forth by Clinton, as they will not allow the ideological balance of the court to be changed away from the conservatives. There could well be 3 vacancies in the court if not more during Clinton's tenure.
Well, I say to the GOP, that's too bad. The people have spoken in electing Hillary Clinton, along with her policy prescriptions and her approach to government. She should not be hamstrung relative to her Constitutional responsibilities before she even begins her term. I suppose that us on the left would be justified in stonewalling Trump, REagan or any other GOP apparatchik when they bring right wing nominees to the Senate for confirmation? None on my side has ever made such a suggestion, they have and would carry it out.
After research, I have found this this aberrant GOP course of action is legal. But, it has to be said that it is highly unethical and reaches the highest of high bars for continued obstruction and gridlock in Washington.
With an attitude like this as a standard GOP principle, I would not vote for one of them as my local dog catcher. All the more reason why I must have a Democratic Party victory in the Senate races. Otherwise, there may only be 3 or 4 justices left on the bench. For a bunch that is always talking about adhering to the Constitution, they appear to operate well outside the spirit of this venerated document.
But, they have always considered democracy and the rule of law, in themselves, as an irritating obstruction.
The last President to be granted a honeymoon was Bush '41. By coincidence, there has only been one Republican President since then.
So what happened to Clinton's and Bush 43's? Did I, who follows politics closely, go into a coma the first two years of their presidencies? Hmmmm, no, I didn't and their honeymoon period was all over the news at the time. I suggest you try
As to Obama's given the Ds supermajority in Congress, he also enjoyed one. But if you look at opposition only, his is the first time there wasn't one. Why, because like with HRC they PROMISED to stop PBO and therefore America. In terms of Congressional action, they succeeded in the last six years by bringing legislation almost to a standstill.
They promise another four years, for a total of ten years of obstructionism, if Clinton; and are likely to be a thorn in Trumps side in the very unlikely event he wins.
What did they accomplish during their honeymoons?
And "bringing legislation almost to a standstill" is six years of success?
It matters not what they accomplished. The "honeymoon period" as it relates to Congress is how much each Party and the combined total helped the president with, but until 2017, his agenda. What his agenda is has nothing to do with the honeymoon period.
Do I call GOP obstructionism a success; no, just the opposite. What WAS a success is all things PBO did accomplish IN SPITE OF GOP obstruction. http://hubpages.com/politics/What-has-P … Years-LOTS
Onusonus: It definitely is a bad thing - whichever side does it. These people are elected to govern, which is compromise, not put their fingers in their ears and stomp their feet.
by Scott Belford 17 months ago
A recent poll caught my attention because of the detail it offered. While it is just a single poll, it does represent what I see in many other polls. What it shows is those on the Right see the world very differently than the rest of America - Why Is That?(Since only a couple demographics...
by Susan Reid 10 years ago
Do you think it's possible to put aside partisan bickering (understatement) here on HP?What would it take for you to really listen to where "they" are coming from?Is it possible to consider "their" point of view without automatically shooting the messenger?Is it possible for...
by mega1 10 years ago
Or does it just seem that way because the Democrats/liberals are less vocal about it? Lately it seems to me there are many many more conservatives and their agendas being pushed at us. I usually keep away from politics entirely, but if it is true that most of the forum posters are...
by skperdon 5 years ago
Let's face it "Hilary for President" gets the Republican base buzzing like no other. We all know that the Benghazi Committee's specific purpose is to go after her and rip her competency to shreds.Then there is the big, bogus email fraud sting. I can see that she is a strong person and a...
by StripedCrunchy 9 years ago
Ya know, I am really excited for the left to run Obambi and that entrenched old establishment DC guy, Joe soundBiten. What a loser ticket!Let us pray that the left is foolish enough to believe Americans LIKE high unemployment, high taxes, high gas prices and inept bungling of ALL things...
by Credence2 2 weeks ago
Some evidence to support my assertion as stated in the original topic "Why Conservatives hate Democracy, Part 1---------WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said that if the United States switched to all-mail voting, “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”The GOP speaker...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|