Are things going too far?

[Inmate Trump]

I kinda think I see where liberals are coming from. They believe the country elected Bill Clinton twice, then elected Al Gore, then Bush won (but should have never been there), then the country twice elected Obama and then a year and a half ago elected Hillary Clinton.

They believe the country is more left than right. That the only reason the Supreme Court is right is because of George W. Bush and Donald Trump putting Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch and another conservative on the courts, and that those should have been Al Gore and Hillary Clinton (or Obama) appointments.

See, this type of arrogance drives me nuts. You say all that, but then your party fails to even recognize mandates for Democrats when they do win elections. I'll never forget 2008, when the Republicans lost the popular vote AND electoral college, and then proceeded to act like the Obama administration had no legitimacy, and were determined to do everything possible to make it a one term anomaly. And then people like you have the gall say that its people like me who just want to cover their ears and ignore the accomplishments and actions of Republican administrations. Honestly Reaganfan, you are part of the problem.

He’ll never see it.

One of the qualities of being a Republican today is a complete disregard of all fact when it does not fit their worldview. Everything is fake news or in some way just didn’t happen.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I kinda think I see where liberals are coming from. They believe the country elected Bill Clinton twice, then elected Al Gore, then Bush won (but should have never been there), then the country twice elected Obama and then a year and a half ago elected Hillary Clinton.

They believe the country is more left than right. That the only reason the Supreme Court is right is because of George W. Bush and Donald Trump putting Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch and another conservative on the courts, and that those should have been Al Gore and Hillary Clinton (or Obama) appointments.

See, this type of arrogance drives me nuts. You say all that, but then your party fails to even recognize mandates for Democrats when they do win elections. I'll never forget 2008, when the Republicans lost the popular vote AND electoral college, and then proceeded to act like the Obama administration had no legitimacy, and were determined to do everything possible to make it a one term anomaly. And then people like you have the gall say that its people like me who just want to cover their ears and ignore the accomplishments and actions of Republican administrations. Honestly Reaganfan, you are part of the problem.

He’ll never see it.

One of the qualities of being a Republican today is a complete disregard of all fact when it does not fit their worldview. Everything is fake news or in some way just didn’t happen.

What are "mandates" and where, exactly, do they come from?  That's not snark; that's a serious question.

There is no question that in 2008, Barack Obama and the Democrats were given a mandate by the voters to undo any number of conservative policies.  Reducing foreign involvements was a mandate.  Financial regulations on big banks and brokerage houses was a mandate.  Establishing some kind of national healthcare was a mandate.  Providing some kind of economic stimulus was a mandate.  These mandates came from the voters who voted for people who said they were going to do these things.  Indeed, the 2008 election marked the effective end of a Democratic Party where the vast majority of Democratic candidates went to extremes to avoid saying that they were "liberal" or "progressive".  (Actually, "progressive" used to mean "Liberal Lite"; now, it means Liberalism on Steroids)

But GOP elected officials were given mandates to oppose much of that by the folks that elected THEM to Congress.  Those millions of Americans (about 46% of them) were against what the Democrats were given a mandate to do, and THEIR voters wanted them to resist implementation of such measures.  Is the overall "national consensus" supposed to bind officials elected on a local or statewide basis from advancing the policies the folks that elected them want them to represent?

I don't deny that, over the years, there has been more deference given to the "mandates" given to GOP Presidents than to Democratic Presidents.  There's a reason for this, and the reason is that until 2008, many, if not most, Democrats sought to minimize their liberalism.  Michael Barone, in his 1996 Almanac of American Politics, made the observation that for decades, the VAST majority of persons in America had voted for Congress for either (A) Republicans, or (B) Democrats who said that they were moderates, or even conservatives.  This is unquestionably true, and it supports the idea that "mandate" received by Democrats over the years was nowhere as clear as the mandate received by Republicans.   This is coupled by the fact that two (2) of our last three (3) Democratic Presidents (Carter and Clinton) often took pains to deliberately cast themselves in as conservative light as they could.  I would argue that neither Carter nor Clinton had the kind of ideological "mandate" that Reagan had.

[pbrower2a]

I kinda think I see where liberals are coming from. They believe the country elected Bill Clinton twice, then elected Al Gore, then Bush won (but should have never been there), then the country twice elected Obama and then a year and a half ago elected Hillary Clinton.

They believe the country is more left than right. That the only reason the Supreme Court is right is because of George W. Bush and Donald Trump putting Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch and another conservative on the courts, and that those should have been Al Gore and Hillary Clinton (or Obama) appointments.

I have mixed feelings about Trump supporters experiencing the personal worst. Nobody deserves to starve to death because we elected someone who thinks hunger a good motivator to compel people to work longer and harder for greater profits and higher executive compensation. Nobody deserves to become a political prisoner, end up in a body bag because of a War for Profit, or 'disappear' as people 'disappeared' in the 'Dirty Wars' of Latin America. Nobody deserves to lose a loved one that way, either. But elect someone whose intellectual shallowness, sadism, or fanaticism makes such possible when meaningful alternatives exist, and you are culpable to some extent. We have elected a right-wing version of Hugo Chavez, and we are headed down the authoritarian, if not totalitarian path. The downward grade gets steeper with every step toward fascism.

The precedent of a largely-cautious 240-mile hike that culminates with walking off a cliff will not result in the restoration of our lives, let alone undoing the bruises and broken bones from going off the cliff.  

We liberals already know what is possible. We are re-reading such cautionary tales as Nineteen Eighty-Four and Fahrenheit 451. We know that character is destiny, and that Donald Trump is a very bad character. Well-educated people know well (and this should be common sense) that it is impossible to reconcile contradictions. Most of us know that an offer is too good to be true, then it is likely neither good nor true.

Democratic politics is not about getting some power in an election and then using that power to alter the system to entrench power once-and-for-all. That is Machiavelli, whom the Founding Fathers abhorred. It may not be possible to again answer the basic questions of forming a new Republic responsible to the People instead of to a King or dictator -- but Donald Trump is forcing us to reach much the same conclusions as our Founding Fathers did (with a recognition that they got slavery and votes for women wrong when nobody had posed those questions or were on the political fringe).  

[wesmoorenerd]

I kinda think I see where liberals are coming from. They believe the country elected Bill Clinton twice, then elected Al Gore, then Bush won (but should have never been there), then the country twice elected Obama and then a year and a half ago elected Hillary Clinton.

They believe the country is more left than right. That the only reason the Supreme Court is right is because of George W. Bush and Donald Trump putting Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch and another conservative on the courts, and that those should have been Al Gore and Hillary Clinton (or Obama) appointments.

See, this type of arrogance drives me nuts. You say all that, but then your party fails to even recognize mandates for Democrats when they do win elections. I'll never forget 2008, when the Republicans lost the popular vote AND electoral college, and then proceeded to act like the Obama administration had no legitimacy, and were determined to do everything possible to make it a one term anomaly. And then people like you have the gall say that its people like me who just want to cover their ears and ignore the accomplishments and actions of Republican administrations. Honestly Reaganfan, you are part of the problem.

Very well said, friend. Republicans have absolutely no right to stand up and yell about how we need to respect the Trump Administration considering the absolute lack of respect shown to Obama. Obama was a president that won an actual and solid majority of American voters, went about the job of President with dignity and decency, and in general was a good man. Unlike Trump. And what did the Republicans do? S*it all over him, obstruct him at every corner, and use extremist tactics and dogwhistles for their own advantage. Republicans have absolutely no right to complain about how nobody respects their wannabe dictator of a President.

[Meclazine for Israel]

I kinda think I see where liberals are coming from. They believe the country elected Bill Clinton twice, then elected Al Gore, then Bush won (but should have never been there), then the country twice elected Obama and then a year and a half ago elected Hillary Clinton.

They believe the country is more left than right. That the only reason the Supreme Court is right is because of George W. Bush and Donald Trump putting Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch and another conservative on the courts, and that those should have been Al Gore and Hillary Clinton (or Obama) appointments.

Like an Argentinian soccer fan, the Democrats will go and lick their wounds, and as you suggest, contemplate what might have been, and then try again in 4 years time.

[Virginiá]

But GOP elected officials were given mandates to oppose much of that by the folks that elected THEM to Congress.  Those millions of Americans (about 46% of them) were against what the Democrats were given a mandate to do, and THEIR voters wanted them to resist implementation of such measures.  Is the overall "national consensus" supposed to bind officials elected on a local or statewide basis from advancing the policies the folks that elected them want them to represent?

I mean, Democrats have the same kind of mandate in that case. Their people want their politicians to oppose Trump in a way that even eclipses Republican opposition to Obama years ago (at least going by the 'strong disapproval' rates of Trump).

What you wrote is actually a fair question, and it's worth considering (I certainly have before). In order for this country's democracy to function, the people themselves need to have some respect for their ideological opponents and understand that they have a right to govern as well, if they are elected. The GOP response to 2008 is a good example of how these scorched earth politics damages the country all in the pursuit of power.

The only part I have trouble coming to terms with is that, Democrats shouldn't go scorched earth either, but in this case, look at it from our perspective. Republicans went nuclear on Obama all to discredit Democrats even when it hurt the country, and they proceeded to use their newfound power post-2010 to rig the maps all over the country to lock Democrats out of power. Then they pushed wave after wave of voting restrictions, and in some states went even as far as packing the courts, stripping elected Democrats of their power to do what the people wanted them to do and even stealing the SCOTUS pick of a Democratic president so Republicans could fill it instead. Then Trump becomes the 2nd Republican president in a row to initially "win" office despite losing the popular vote, except this time he lost it by millions of votes instead of a slim loss like GWB. He proceeds to weaponize almost every inch of the federal govt against his opponents in a further escalation of damaging partisan politics.

How can Democrats not be seething over this? And this is what I've been saying. This shameless abuse of power by Republicans since Obama all because, presumably, Republican voters are so desperate to get what they want that they will do anything to get it, even if it means burning every bridge between the two sides in this country. So I understand the need to respect the other side's right to govern, but they have have not respected my side's and they have taken so much from us in the process. I'm just utterly fed up with this entire process. The GOP has ruined the idea of politics for me.

[krazen1211]

I kinda think I see where liberals are coming from. They believe the country elected Bill Clinton twice, then elected Al Gore, then Bush won (but should have never been there), then the country twice elected Obama and then a year and a half ago elected Hillary Clinton.

They believe the country is more left than right. That the only reason the Supreme Court is right is because of George W. Bush and Donald Trump putting Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch and another conservative on the courts, and that those should have been Al Gore and Hillary Clinton (or Obama) appointments.

Not just here. Some Remain fellows are trying to nullify the results of that election because they are unable to accept defeat with class and dignity.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Like them or not, Republicans are doing what they need to win. If Democrats could be bothered to do the same (without violating basic democratic principles like the GOP does - but they wouldn't need to anyway since the majority of this country is left-wing), this would be a fair fight. Unfortunately, they are too busy pontificating about muh civility and self-congratulating about how reasonable they are.

[Suburbia]

Like them or not, Republicans are doing what they need to win. If Democrats could be bothered to do the same (without violating basic democratic principles like the GOP does - but they wouldn't need to anyway since the majority of this country is left-wing), this would be a fair fight. Unfortunately, they are too busy pontificating about muh civility and self-congratulating about how reasonable they are.

The country is not left-wing

It is in the center

NY and LA does not dominate American politics

The heartland does

[Antonio the Sixth]

Like them or not, Republicans are doing what they need to win. If Democrats could be bothered to do the same (without violating basic democratic principles like the GOP does - but they wouldn't need to anyway since the majority of this country is left-wing), this would be a fair fight. Unfortunately, they are too busy pontificating about muh civility and self-congratulating about how reasonable they are.

The country is not left-wing

It is in the center

NY and LA does not dominate American politics

The heartland does

The """heartland""" is the part of the country that demands higher wages and universal healthcare the most.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Like them or not, Republicans are doing what they need to win. If Democrats could be bothered to do the same (without violating basic democratic principles like the GOP does - but they wouldn't need to anyway since the majority of this country is left-wing), this would be a fair fight. Unfortunately, they are too busy pontificating about muh civility and self-congratulating about how reasonable they are.

The country is not left-wing

It is in the center

NY and LA does not dominate American politics

The heartland does

The """heartland""" is the part of the country that demands higher wages and universal healthcare the most.

But not at any price.  Not at the price of abortion on demand, or SSM, or unfettered, limitless immigration.  Not at the price of the sort of social liberalism that conflicts with their consciences.

The Democrats have made that sort of social liberalism litmus tests as to what is a Democrat.  In doing so, they have sealed the fate of the kinds of policies that would actually reverse income inequality and make life for the working and middle classes more bearable and manageable.

[forgotten manatee]

We will soon have a Republican-controlled White House thanks in part to the influence of a hostile foreign power, a Republican-controlled Congress thanks in part to gerrymandering, and a Republican Supreme Court due to dirty tactics and a stolen seat. Is the GOP pushing its ruthlessness and bad faith too far? If so, what are the likely consequences or results?

Yes and they have went too far a long time ago. But the Democrats refuse to gerrymander California or New York, refuse to break up California, and can't even get single payer passed at the state level. And some commentators only reluctantly support expanding the size of the Supreme Court. So what? You don't stick up for yourself with what little power you do have, you don't get to complain when you get kicked in the face.

Democrats definitely need to play hardball, I’ll give you that.

If we are going pie in the sky, rather than break up California, I would merge the Dakotas into one  state. There’s no reason for those two states to have four Senators.

[Reaganfan]

I think another factor is that many people, predominately white working class people, feel as though their voice is not represented.

Be honest here, people had a chance to vote on whether or not to legalize same sex marriages. From California to Ohio to Michigan to North Carolina to Mississippi to Missouri...people, in many cases emphatically, voted absolutely not.

Then, by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, their voices were told, "We don't care what you want".

[Virginiá]

Then, by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, their voices were told, "We don't care what you want".

What exactly is your point? That the court system shouldn't upset white working class people, and should tailor rulings to their wishes?

[Reaganfan]

Then, by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, their voices were told, "We don't care what you want".

What exactly is your point? That the court system shouldn't upset white working class people, and should tailor rulings to their wishes?

No, my point is, that they still have a voice in the secrecy of the ballot box.

[Hammy]

I think another factor is that many people, predominately white working class people, feel as though their voice is not represented.

Be honest here, people had a chance to vote on whether or not to legalize same sex marriages. From California to Ohio to Michigan to North Carolina to Mississippi to Missouri...people, in many cases emphatically, voted absolutely not.

Then, by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, their voices were told, "We don't care what you want".

This is one of the issues that drove me out of the Republican Party early on, that "I can't have what I want if I can't force my values on someone else's life" notion with marriage. Imagine if votes had been held on slavery, I'm sure we would've had a different outcome there as well.

[junior chįmp]

I kinda think I see where liberals are coming from. They believe the country elected Bill Clinton twice, then elected Al Gore, then Bush won (but should have never been there), then the country twice elected Obama and then a year and a half ago elected Hillary Clinton.

They believe the country is more left than right. That the only reason the Supreme Court is right is because of George W. Bush and Donald Trump putting Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch and another conservative on the courts, and that those should have been Al Gore and Hillary Clinton (or Obama) appointments.

See, this type of arrogance drives me nuts. You say all that, but then your party fails to even recognize mandates for Democrats when they do win elections. I'll never forget 2008, when the Republicans lost the popular vote AND electoral college, and then proceeded to act like the Obama administration had no legitimacy, and were determined to do everything possible to make it a one term anomaly. And then people like you have the gall say that its people like me who just want to cover their ears and ignore the accomplishments and actions of Republican administrations. Honestly Reaganfan, you are part of the problem.

He’ll never see it.

One of the qualities of being a Republican today is a complete disregard of all fact when it does not fit their worldview. Everything is fake news or in some way just didn’t happen.

What are "mandates" and where, exactly, do they come from?  That's not snark; that's a serious question.

There's no such thing as a presidential mandate. Lopsided election results or even slim victories are mostly the result of circumstances out of either parties control. (economic downturn, unforeseen circumstances, changing demographics, bogged down in some war, etc..)

For more info see Robert Dahl's Myth of the Presidential Mandate

Also see number 4 in this article: Ten Things Political Scientists Know that You Don’t

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[wesmoorenerd]

Like them or not, Republicans are doing what they need to win. If Democrats could be bothered to do the same (without violating basic democratic principles like the GOP does - but they wouldn't need to anyway since the majority of this country is left-wing), this would be a fair fight. Unfortunately, they are too busy pontificating about muh civility and self-congratulating about how reasonable they are.

The country is not left-wing

It is in the center

NY and LA does not dominate American politics

The heartland does

The """heartland""" is the part of the country that demands higher wages and universal healthcare the most.

But not at any price.  Not at the price of abortion on demand, or SSM, or unfettered, limitless immigration.  Not at the price of the sort of social liberalism that conflicts with their consciences.

The Democrats have made that sort of social liberalism litmus tests as to what is a Democrat.  In doing so, they have sealed the fate of the kinds of policies that would actually reverse income inequality and make life for the working and middle classes more bearable and manageable.

Oh no! What a price to pay! The price of letting women make decisions about their frail, subservient bodies! The price of the icky icky gay people getting MARRIED! The price of letting in immigrants that improve our economy and that add to our culture!

Social liberalism is half of what it means to be a Democrat. Democrats are just as obliged to fight for the rights of women, LGBT people, and minorities as they are the poor. And that's a fight that they're winning. Have you seen the opinion polls on same sex marriage? Twenty years ago it was essentially unthinkable, now it's got majority approval in every state except Alabama.

[wesmoorenerd]

I think another factor is that many people, predominately white working class people, feel as though their voice is not represented.

Be honest here, people had a chance to vote on whether or not to legalize same sex marriages. From California to Ohio to Michigan to North Carolina to Mississippi to Missouri...people, in many cases emphatically, voted absolutely not.

Then, by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, their voices were told, "We don't care what you want".

This is one of the issues that drove me out of the Republican Party early on, that "I can't have what I want if I can't force my values on someone else's life" notion with marriage. Imagine if votes had been held on slavery, I'm sure we would've had a different outcome there as well.

I couldn't agree more. The Supreme Court made a ruling based on the Constitution. That's what the Supreme Court does. There's a reason we have a Constitution. In this country, we have the rule of law, not tyranny by majority. The Constitution is the law of the land, and if the Supreme Court finds something to be in violation of the law of the land, then that thing gets struck down.

Nowhere in this process is public opinion and voting involved, and for a good reason. People's votes shouldn't get to determine whether or not people hold fundamental rights. Yes, the Supreme Court doesn't care what the people want, because that's not its job. Some rulings are unpopular but definitely the correct ruling. Brown v. Board of Education comes to mind, given the immense backlash in the South. If the Supreme Court's job was to listen to what the people wanted, the evil of segregation would've survived for all too much longer.

So yes, the Supreme Court doesn't care what the people want. And for that, we must be grateful.

[Reaganfan]

I think another factor is that many people, predominately white working class people, feel as though their voice is not represented.

Be honest here, people had a chance to vote on whether or not to legalize same sex marriages. From California to Ohio to Michigan to North Carolina to Mississippi to Missouri...people, in many cases emphatically, voted absolutely not.

Then, by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, their voices were told, "We don't care what you want".

This is one of the issues that drove me out of the Republican Party early on, that "I can't have what I want if I can't force my values on someone else's life" notion with marriage. Imagine if votes had been held on slavery, I'm sure we would've had a different outcome there as well.

I couldn't agree more. The Supreme Court made a ruling based on the Constitution. That's what the Supreme Court does. There's a reason we have a Constitution. In this country, we have the rule of law, not tyranny by majority. The Constitution is the law of the land, and if the Supreme Court finds something to be in violation of the law of the land, then that thing gets struck down.

Nowhere in this process is public opinion and voting involved, and for a good reason. People's votes shouldn't get to determine whether or not people hold fundamental rights. Yes, the Supreme Court doesn't care what the people want, because that's not its job. Some rulings are unpopular but definitely the correct ruling. Brown v. Board of Education comes to mind, given the immense backlash in the South. If the Supreme Court's job was to listen to what the people wanted, the evil of segregation would've survived for all too much longer.

So yes, the Supreme Court doesn't care what the people want. And for that, we must be grateful.

So that's that, then. We could very well live in a nation a few years from now that is heavily armed, has legalized gay marriage but also bans abortion.

I guess both sides will have to accept what it is and live in harmony.

[twenty42]

I kinda think I see where liberals are coming from. They believe the country elected Bill Clinton twice, then elected Al Gore, then Bush won (but should have never been there), then the country twice elected Obama and then a year and a half ago elected Hillary Clinton.

They believe the country is more left than right. That the only reason the Supreme Court is right is because of George W. Bush and Donald Trump putting Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch and another conservative on the courts, and that those should have been Al Gore and Hillary Clinton (or Obama) appointments.

See, this type of arrogance drives me nuts. You say all that, but then your party fails to even recognize mandates for Democrats when they do win elections. I'll never forget 2008, when the Republicans lost the popular vote AND electoral college, and then proceeded to act like the Obama administration had no legitimacy, and were determined to do everything possible to make it a one term anomaly. And then people like you have the gall say that its people like me who just want to cover their ears and ignore the accomplishments and actions of Republican administrations. Honestly Reaganfan, you are part of the problem.

Very well said, friend. Republicans have absolutely no right to stand up and yell about how we need to respect the Trump Administration considering the absolute lack of respect shown to Obama. Obama was a president that won an actual and solid majority of American voters, went about the job of President with dignity and decency, and in general was a good man. Unlike Trump. And what did the Republicans do? S*it all over him, obstruct him at every corner, and use extremist tactics and dogwhistles for their own advantage. Republicans have absolutely no right to complain about how nobody respects their wannabe dictator of a President.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but when did Republicans question the actual legitimacy of Obama's victories? They may have sought to minimize his political footprint, but that's what the opposition does in politics.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of hearing that Republicans obstructed Obama from Day 1. Dems took control of the White House, the Congress, and the Senate in January 2009. If Republicans were able to do so much damage while they held no power, then that's on the Dems. It seems the only thing Dems accomplished in those two years was to piss America off, and the proof in the pudding is that Republicans won a resounding victory in 2010. You can canonize Obama all you want, but the fact is that he oversaw every federal and state body of government go from Dem-controlled to Republican-controlled over his eight years.

And as far as 2016 goes...if the Democratic Party is such the inevitable colossus that this board makes it out to be, then maybe, just MAYBE they would've won the NPV by more than two points and the PV/EV split wouldn't have been an issue.

[junior chįmp]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but when did Republicans question the actual legitimacy of Obama's victories? They may have sought to minimize his political footprint, but that's what the opposition does in politics.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of hearing that Republicans obstructed Obama from Day 1. Dems took control of the White House, the Congress, and the Senate in January 2009. If Republicans were able to do so much damage while they held no power, then that's on the Dems. It seems the only thing Dems accomplished in those two years was to piss America off, and the proof in the pudding is that Republicans won a resounding victory in 2010. You can canonize Obama all you want, but the fact is that he oversaw every federal and state body of government go from Dem-controlled to Republican-controlled over his eight years.

And as far as 2016 goes...if the Democratic Party is such the inevitable colossus that this board makes it out to be, then maybe, just MAYBE they would've won the NPV by more than two points and the PV/EV split wouldn't have been an issue.

Fact check: False!

The Republicans actually planned to obstruct Obama BEFORE he was even inaugurated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[twenty42]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but when did Republicans question the actual legitimacy of Obama's victories? They may have sought to minimize his political footprint, but that's what the opposition does in politics.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of hearing that Republicans obstructed Obama from Day 1. Dems took control of the White House, the Congress, and the Senate in January 2009. If Republicans were able to do so much damage while they held no power, then that's on the Dems. It seems the only thing Dems accomplished in those two years was to piss America off, and the proof in the pudding is that Republicans won a resounding victory in 2010. You can canonize Obama all you want, but the fact is that he oversaw every federal and state body of government go from Dem-controlled to Republican-controlled over his eight years.

And as far as 2016 goes...if the Democratic Party is such the inevitable colossus that this board makes it out to be, then maybe, just MAYBE they would've won the NPV by more than two points and the PV/EV split wouldn't have been an issue.

Fact check: False!

The Republicans actually planned to obstruct Obama BEFORE he was even inaugurated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans could've planned anything they wanted...they had no power. How did a party that controlled the White House and 59% of both houses of Congress manage to let Republicans "obstruct" them?

[junior chįmp]

Republicans could've planned anything they wanted...they had no power. How did a party that controlled the White House and 59% of both houses of Congress manage to let Republicans "obstruct" them?

Easy. Because Democrats are weak and they believe in that pie-in-the-sky theory that there's a purple America and that its possible to engage in bipartisanship with the GOP.

[progressive85]

I think another factor is that many people, predominately white working class people, feel as though their voice is not represented.

Be honest here, people had a chance to vote on whether or not to legalize same sex marriages. From California to Ohio to Michigan to North Carolina to Mississippi to Missouri...people, in many cases emphatically, voted absolutely not.

Then, by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, their voices were told, "We don't care what you want".

Do you really think that in the 1950s the Southern states would have voted to integrate public schools or to outlaw segregation?  By over 90% of the vote, civil rights would have lost in state after state after state - it took a liberal Supreme Court to uphold the rights and the dignity of a minority population that was not just hated in the South, but in parts of the North as well.

If gays were the majority of one state and they decided that heterosexuals should not be able to marry one another, and if that's what the state voted for, would that make it right?  No.  It is democratic though but the United States is not a pure democracy.  "Tyranny of the majority" needs to be checked.