You have to be kidding me. This has been the most obstructionist Congress of my short lifetime.
Republicans already working to stop Trump?
- Thread starter TigerGrowls
- Start date
You have to be kidding me. This has been the most obstructionist Congress of my short lifetime.
You see what you want to see. Trump knows little about foreign policy. Any time he gets cornered he tends to change the subject by attacking on a personal level. As far as Clinton and Bengahzi go: if there was something to pin on her then all the attempts by Fox news and the GOP have turned up little if anything. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/08/05/fox-news-quiet-after-congressional-report-finds/200318
The Republicans control both houses and they have yet to come up with a solution for anything. The Dems and GOP in Washington are a bunch of clowns. No one wants to cross the isle in order to get anything constructive accomplished.
Ive yet to find a candidate who knows every single thing that's put in front of him. Not sure any of them know anything about foreign policy. They may sound good at times. But I doubt they even know what they would do. They don't even know what's really going on until they get into office and they let them know "what's really going on."
Well the good thing is Fox and the GOP aren't the federal prosecutors or the FBI. So there's still hope.
That's certainly your opinion. There's a lot that they do not fight as well. As "against him" as they claim, they should be tougher.
Last edited:
what does this mean? He's been "winning" according to the batshit factions of the GOP that are polled after a debate on the drudge report? Once the presidential debates take place and both sides of the aisle are taken into account, there is no absolutely no way that Trump will "win" any of the debates. I can't believe you're even arguing this. Hillary's a sleazy politician, but she has such an overwhelming amount of experience and knowledge compared to Trump that I have a hard time questioning your sanity if you can't see it. Please, as others have stated, watch and/or read the transcript of Trump's Washington Post interview from last week. It summarizes his lunacy so well.
No, we don't just need a leader who can bring Americans together and, even if that WERE sufficient, Trump doesn't fit the bill. He divides; he does not unite.
Read the Washington Post transcript; read the foreign policy discussion he had with NYTimes editors. No need to claim liberal bias. These are Donald's own words. His foreign policy is uneducated and highly risky. Hitler brought people together. So did Brezhnev. The Japanese loved Emperor Hirohito. Hell, Jim Jones brought people together in Guyana.
None were good leaders for their people.
We need a leader who knows when s/he does not know enough and is willing to reach out for advice. Has DJT shown one instance when he is willing to do the same? "I talk to myself, I have a big brain." Sorry, Cavity, that doesn't fly in my book.
We need a leader who doesn't praise the 'strength' of Putin and the Chinese government when it stopped the protests at Tienanmen Square. How strong does one need to be on the host end of a tank or gun?
We need a leader who will tell Americans the truth, even when it is bad news. Granted, few have done this or we would have (a) paid much higher taxes to fund the wars in the Middle East; and (b) made numerous adjustments to entitlements. But DJT says we won't need to make any adjustments to Social Security - for anyone. Now I don't think those people at or nearing retirement should have their benefits changed but he should recognize the need for younger workers to have a different system in place for their retirements. But he denies its necessity.
I could go on and on.
if you dont know what hillarys platform is, its because you arent paying ANY attention. every single dem debate has been about policy, and she has gigantic policy sections on her website. same with bernie.
It is the presidents job to work with congress. Clinton did it, HW did it, Reagan did it, and even GW did it. Obama has made very little effort to do this. That is why nothing is getting done. He is now using the SCOTUS to write the law for him.
Even during his first two years when he has the senate and the house, he barely got anything passed.
The fact that republicans have a huge majority in the house, an 8 seat margin in the senate, 60% of governorship, 3/4 of the state senates and 2/3 of the state houses...is all a referendum on Obama.
I am not a fan of Trump, I am just stating facts. He may not be saying what you want to hear, but he is winning his debates. That is based on the primaries he is winning, and just watching the debates. Not to mention he essentially knocked Bush and Rubio from the race....both of which were the Republican factions top two choices to win.
Hate Trump all you want, and disagree with what little he is saying, but he is winning the debates.
No, actually it's a fact. The last two Congresses have been the least productive in the history of the United States. Their obstructionist tendencies directly correspond to this outcome. The GOP controlled Congress has both stopped President Obama's policy initiatives and done nothing on their own accord.
If you're referring to executive actions taken by the President, well Congress has very limited authority to limit the executive branch's discretion per the Constitution. And save me the Obama is acting like a tyrant argument because in sheer numbers he has issued less executive orders than Republican Presidents that proceeded him, including the golden goose Reagan.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ivity-congress-avoids-least-productive-title/
Last edited:
Guru...you speak truth and I like it. Now if neither Trump or Cruz get the nomination then something stinks in Republican politics and they will go down like Monica Lewinski.
You're looking at this through too narrow a lens. Yes, he continues to win the republican primary race, but that doesn't mean he's winning debates. Any objective viewer (i.e. someone who isn't predisposed to liking Trump) can see that he has no discernible debate skills and lacks any substance whatsoever in what he's saying. Thus, once the debates are held on a larger scale, with a more even-handed audience of republicans and democrats watching, his incompetence will finally be acknowledged. And it will surely affect his poll position.
As a proclaimed moderate you prefer the scandals and dishonesty that is the Clintons that has been going on since they first appeared on the national scene to Trump who is a mega successful businessman who is sick and tired of what is going on in this country and has the ability to get in this race because he wants to fix it instead of the same old BS? I think a lot of moderates will disagree with you.
Infowars is a source of news off the mainstream. I read drudgereport, infowars, and other alternate news source sites and i never watch the network news shows. We have differing viewpoints on where to get our news and what is right or not, so it is what it is.
What has the US as a country been doing for the last 80 or more years, but forcing other countries to do what we want? Trump just does not beat around the bush in telling what he will do...pardon the bush reference..LOL.
no. it is what it is? no, its not. infowars is not news. its not a source of news.
oh yea, and your boy, who "tells it like it is" tonight on cnn said that the three main functions of the fed govt are security, education, and healthcare. he is trolling you all.
One final burn for Republicans... Obama's approval rating is at 54%, partly as a result of this clown show.
Last edited:
The day after Obama's 1st election Mitch McConnell said that his #1 priority was to deny Obama a second term. It shows a lot of cooperation from the other side of the aisle.
That has nothing to do with what I said. Mitch McConnell wasn't even the Senate leader until 6 years into Obama's presidency. You are just grabbing at straws and you look quite pathetic doing it.
Obama had the Senate for 6 years and lost the House 2 years into his presidency. That is on him and no one else. Overall voter ideology didn't change that fast. It was up to him to work with congress, but he didn't....not even in his last two years. Go read about the compromises GW, Bill, HW and Reagan did...then come back and post in this thread. He has even come out and said if he can't get congress to do what he wants, he will use executive orders and the SCOTUS.
The irony in criticizing Obama's use of executive orders is that among the first things people such as Trump and Cruz have said is that they will use executive orders to overturn Obama's executive orders!
Every president, once he becomes president, suddenly recognizes the beauty of the powers inherent in the office. By the same measure, Senators do things like vote against the debt limit to make a political stand. Presidents, even those who have served in Congress and once voted against the debt limit, recognize that the country cannot go into bankruptcy and protest against legislators who would reject an increase to the debt limit.
Every president, once he becomes president, suddenly recognizes the beauty of the powers inherent in the office. By the same measure, Senators do things like vote against the debt limit to make a political stand. Presidents, even those who have served in Congress and once voted against the debt limit, recognize that the country cannot go into bankruptcy and protest against legislators who would reject an increase to the debt limit.
McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom.
That's not ironic. That is like saying killing Osama because of 9/11 was ironic.
And it isn't the executive orders themselves that he has done. Considering Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc all did more executive orders than Obama. You would have to go all the way back to Grant in the 1800s to find a two term president who had less EO than Obama.
It is the rhetoric he has used in making certain executive orders, as well as what he has been doing with those orders. Some executive orders are essentially meaningless. For example the 21 executive orders he issued related to gun control essentially did nothing, contrary to what some Republicans may have said. However his executive orders on immigration definitely went beyond his authority, and they were subsequently overruled.
It also looks bad because he constantly hammered Bush on his use of executive orders, yet Obama has turned around and use them to push his agenda.
That's not ironic. That is like saying killing Osama because of 9/11 was ironic.
And it isn't the executive orders themselves that he has done. Considering Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc all did more executive orders than Obama. You would have to go all the way back to Grant in the 1800s to find a two term president who had less EO than Obama.
It is the rhetoric he has used in making certain executive orders, as well as what he has been doing with those orders. Some executive orders are essentially meaningless. For example the 21 executive orders he issued related to gun control essentially did nothing, contrary to what some Republicans may have said. However his executive orders on immigration definitely went beyond his authority, and they were subsequently overruled.
It also looks bad because he constantly hammered Bush on his use of executive orders, yet Obama has turned around and use them to push his agenda.
Drudgereport is an aggregator of news for center-right types. Infowars reports conspiracies without much evidence for anything. There's a big difference.
Yes, it isn't the use of executive orders, per se, that's the problem, it's using them in the absence of legislation to do what you want to do. Obama said he was doing as much in the case of immigration.
I don't think he's grasping at straws. Look at Obama's approval rating and compare it Congress's approval rating. There's certainly substance to his argument.
And how can you criticize his use of executive orders when he, as you say, has used very few of them? You allude to rhetoric, so you're letting words rustle your jimmies over substance?
Regardless, Obama is about to be out of the Whitehouse. Arguing over him is less relevant that discussing the current candidates. Your boy Trump looked like a clown once again last night. How any semi intelligent person could support him after seeing what Kasich had to say following Trump's musings is beyond me. Kasich actually knew what he was talking about and had substantive things to say.
Last edited:
You can't compare congressional approval ratings with the president. They are always going to be lower. 1) congress doesn't have a face, it is almost 550 people. 2) the average person is an idiot and does not understand how things work, as a result, congress is always going to have a much lower approval rating than the President, regardless of who it is.
And I guess you didn't read what I posted about his executive orders, or you just can't comprehend what I am saying.
And Trump is not my boy, so I don't know what you are alluding to there. I have said the Republicans would be smart to nominate Kasich because he would be a lock to beat Hillary.
Congressional approval ratings are never particularly high because they don't have a bully pulpit, each one was elected by a small fraction of the country, and Congress is oppositional by design. A president, by contrast, was elected nationally, can speak unilaterally for the executive, and will usually have a celebrity factor that Congress will never have. You just can't expect Congress to have comparable approval ratings to a president.
Also, you should take into account that many of the Republican voters who elected a majority Republican Congress dislike Congress because they think they aren't opposing the president strongly enough. Democrats, since Congress now has a majority of Republicans in both houses, are naturally not going to like Congress right now. So, again, you can't look at the difference between Congressional approval ratings and Obama's approval ratings as a sign that people like Obama's policies.
What's interesting about Obama is that he's remained relatively popular even while his policies have been unpopular enough for his party to lose majorities in Congress. He's a personally attractive guy who knows how to use the media to get his message across. And his team has done a good job of insinuating him into pop culture, even if you think that's not what a president should be doing. So people find him hard to disapprove of, even if they don't particularly like the things he advocates.
I think the only thing about this is, it's not hard for any Democrat to get help from the media. There's tons of people that don't like the guy. Even liberals that voted for him, some do not like him. But the media, for a liberal, isn't hard to get on your side. Our media is a joke, and they no longer report. Ive noticed in my short life just how bad they really are. They, and I mean all media are bad about telling you what you want to hear, or giving you their opinion. I prefer to just get the facts. No spin. Form my own opinion ya know. So I think he gets a lot of help from the media, b/c they love him. Not necessarily does everyone else love him. I mean, Trump catches a lot of flack for his words, but does anyone every really pay attention to the attitude, smugness and the words of Obama? That's dude is a laughing stock. And he got reelected.. I still find it hard to believe that he is our president.
I for one voted in the primaries for the first time that I can remember for Kasich primary against Trump.
I won't vote for Trump if he is the nominee. I would probably vote for Gary Johnson. Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal. Looked at all bills as governor of NM from a cost-benefit perspective, which I like. He is closest to my views anyway although goes too far on some issues for my taste. Perhaps he can get 5% this year and get the Libertarian Party some traction.
I won't vote for Trump if he is the nominee. I would probably vote for Gary Johnson. Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal. Looked at all bills as governor of NM from a cost-benefit perspective, which I like. He is closest to my views anyway although goes too far on some issues for my taste. Perhaps he can get 5% this year and get the Libertarian Party some traction.
I really wish people could get behind a libertarian. I think it would solve a lot of issues in this country. Of all of people in this election, Rand Paul made more sense than anyone.
The problem is, the primaries pull each candidate further to the ideological left or right. The Democrats always wanted Hillary to run, but they also wanted Elizabeth Warren to run to force Hillary to the far left on all of her issues....Bernie ended up being the one to do that, and it has worked. Same thing with Republicans. No one cared about Paul, Christie, etc because they weren't conservative enough, instead the most conservative candidate is the one left (Cruz). Kasich is only in it because he has managed his money better and was able to hold on.
A fiscally conservative and socially liberal person could win a national election in a landslide.
But that person will never get through either party's nominating processes.
Bill Clinton was close to that. John Kasich is far from a social liberal.
There isn't one, I don't think. So I try not to listen to much of anyone. I think ive told you before, but I like Bill O'reilly, Not FOX. Just his show. But my favorite would be Wallbuilders (i think they are nationally syndicated), which comes on local radio station here in the upstate in the morning. Now, i understand when someone is giving their opinion, but those two seem to report the most factual, with less opinion, IMHO. It's seriously very hard to find anyone that's just reports the news and let's you form your opinion. But again, i watch this and/or listen to it, so i know how they are. It's always funny for someone who doesn't watch it, or listen to wallbuidlers explain how they are. I can't tell you one thing about how CNN is, i don't watch it. Same with Fox. I have an idea, but i honestly couldn't tell you "you shouldn't watch that. or you should watch this", regarding something i don't even watch.
Last edited:
It's good that you'll take the time to watch Matthews and hannity, but neither of those guys are no-spin right? They are both heavy spin. You are just getting both sides and trying to find the truth in the middle? Which is a reasonable and rational way to find news sources.
My point is that no news sources have no spin.
I read financial times, the economist, stratfor, vox and the nytimes. They all spin the facts one way or another.
who is the most Anti Federalist, anti illegal-immigration and pro US economy? Does that exist, if so, that's who i would prefer. any options here?
They are all pro-is economy, it's just a matter of how to do it on that question. But anti-federalist and anti-illegal immigration? Ted Cruz. But I hope you love your religion if that's the route you choose, because Cruz is a fundamentalist and an idealogue.
It has been my experience in my nearly seventy years that people find news to be more factual when it conforms to their own preconceived opinions. It is also heartening to read this board and see people argue about politics until eventually one or more persons admit they were wrong and that the other person was right all along.........
I agree with this.
Also, Bill was definitelty not the far left liberal some made him out to be.
Similar threads
