Are things going too far?

[twenty42]

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.

Then you should be angrier with the Dems than the Republicans. They were given a government monopoly on a silver platter and they blew it.

And by the way, the fact that Obama based his whole campaign on destroying the legacy of the then-incumbent Republican president undermines your bipartisan soliloquy a little bit.

[forgotten manatee]

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.

Then you should be angrier with the Dems than the Republicans. They were given a government monopoly on a silver platter and they blew it.

And by the way, the fact that Obama based his whole campaign on destroying the legacy of the then-incumbent Republican president undermines your bipartisan soliloquy a little bit.

Democrats were also wrestling with the fallout of near economic collapse, which the Republicans did nothing to help with once Obama took office. The 2010 results can’t be analyzed properly without also looking at the larger economic picture. Gosh you are dense.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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?

By making the mistake of treating them as decent human beings and legitimate partners in government?

[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.

Then you should be angrier with the Dems than the Republicans. They were given a government monopoly on a silver platter and they blew it.

Fact check: True!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no and there has never been bipartisanship in American politics. (unless the legislation at hand doesn't benefit either party) Unless dire circumstances force differing sides to put their ideology aside then the political side that dominates the narrative calls the shots. During the New Deal days, Republicans had to vote for liberal policies to ensure their electoral viability. After the Reagan realignment...Democrats (especially during the Clintoon years) had to do the same. The problem with people like Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, etc... is that they think the GOP is interested in bipartisanship....just lol, nope. As long as obstruction, treason, and borderline criminal activity give you electoral victories then theres no reason to stop.

[here2view]

Things have been going too far since 2015, if not before then.

I'm ashamed at some of the conditions in this country. I'm a Social Studies teacher - last year I had to teach middle schoolers about the Dylann Roof shooting and the Charlottesville riots... where did we go wrong as a country???

And those aren't even related to Trump, or the GOP. Roof happened while Obama was in office and Charlottesville likely still happens if he or Hillary were President. It's a separate, bigger issue in this country.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Democrats didn't have a spine to tie up Senate to get Garland through. 

But, like it was pointed out earlier, things will quiet down, and Roberts won't let things get out of control with his Crt.

[Virginiá]

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?

Well if you only needed 51 votes in the Senate to do stuff, you might have a point. But that isn't the case without gutting the filibuster.

[Mr. Smith]

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?

Well if you only needed 51 votes in the Senate to do stuff, you might have a point. But that isn't the case without gutting the filibuster.

Which really is what they should've done the minute that stimulus got mutilated. It's all too clear now.

[Virginiá]

Which really is what they should've done the minute that stimulus got mutilated. It's all too clear now.

hindsight

[pbrower2a]

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".

My state (Michigan) could have held a referendum on the issue and didn't. Cowardly GOP!

I became for same-sex marriage after I was gay-bashed. I expressed my change of opinion on homosexuality to some very conservative people -- and I used the argument of law and order. Sure, I am straight -- but that's hard to prove to an angry bigot.

I also quit telling 'gay jokes'.

Whatever makes life safer for homosexuals makes my life safer.   

[forgotten manatee]

Things have been going too far since 2015, if not before then.

I'm ashamed at some of the conditions in this country. I'm a Social Studies teacher - last year I had to teach middle schoolers about the Dylann Roof shooting and the Charlottesville riots... where did we go wrong as a country???

And those aren't even related to Trump, or the GOP. Roof happened while Obama was in office and Charlottesville likely still happens if he or Hillary were President. It's a separate, bigger issue in this country.

I don’t think Charlottesville would have happened with Obama or Hillary as president, especially if Trump never even campaigned. His rhetoric has made racist scum feel comfortable coming out of the woodwork, which is an uncomfortable truth that Trumpie clowns on here ignore, to their eternal shame. It’s not a coincidence that Nazis are seeking GOP nominations  post-2016.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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?

The Court should have not redefined, through Judicial Activism, the meaning of the term "marriage".  To say that "marriage" ever meant, in law, the union of anyone but a man and a woman is making stuff out of whole cloth for a political end.  That, btw, is the difference between Obergefell and Loving.  In Loving, the court upheld the existing right of persons to marry the unmarried opposite-gender partner of their choice; they didn't redefine the term.

I understand that the Court exists to protect the rights of minorities that are not subject to plebescite.  I get that.  But Obergefell was the Court redefining a term in law, with no legitimate legal basis for doing so.  That is legislating from the bench, regardless of what the majority asserts.

Abortion, too, is a decision that created a "right" out of Judicial Activism.  There is, IMO, the undeniable reality that abortion is infanticide; it takes a human life, and the life it takes is no less human and no less inviolate because of the circumstances surrounding the conception.   This is especially true of late-term abortion and partial-birth abortion.  In this case, the argument that a human being (or, at a minimum, a living being at a stage of development we were all once at) is being killed is simply dismissed.  Until Roe, there was never a question as to the state's right to regulate medical procedures, and there was nothing unique or special about abortion (other than the public controversy) to conclude what folks came to conclude on the topic.

As to SSM, while I will not say that there will not be long-term negative impacts to society as a result of this decision, I will say that it's an act whose moral consequences fall on the folks who engage in it.  I don't oppose it because of this nonsense  that it is "an attack on the sanctity of marriage"; I oppose it because I consider it to be an affront to God.  And I have Biblical basis for saying so.  I do view it as a fait acompli, but I'm not going to sign off on it on a personal level if pushed, and making it a defining issue of "Who is a Democrat?" is something that represents a question of conscience for me.

I note that the Democrats will not mind if Linda Sarsour indulges the Jihadist passages of the Quran, or whether Khazir Khan subscribes to Quranic doctrine that would be labeled misogynistic if it came from Christian Scripture.  I note that the Democrats never seem to excoriate Black Evangelicals, even when they are men like T. D. Jakes, or the late E. V. Hill, but they feel free to tee off on White Evangelicals.  Yet if I were to run for office as a pro-life Democrat, I would be persona non grata, almost as if I were one of these alt-right types trying to use a major party for easy ballot access.  The Democrats have made these moral issues definitive; what does that do for someone like me who is not in agreement with the GOP economic agenda?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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.

Then you should be angrier with the Dems than the Republicans. They were given a government monopoly on a silver platter and they blew it.

And by the way, the fact that Obama based his whole campaign on destroying the legacy of the then-incumbent Republican president undermines your bipartisan soliloquy a little bit.

Very selective memory there: it's not like Bush needed any help in having his "legacy" undermined in the 2008 election. Him and his administration were widely despised across the board, almost all of his signature policies were being maligned and he spent his last few years careening from crisis to crisis.

Obama if anything was far too kind to his predecessor: the Bush administration's crimes and mismanagement were quickly thrown into the memory hole and Bush just became a figure that could pal around with Obama and Michelle like he isn't a despicable and degenerate war criminal.

I don't like to pretend that my country is perfect, but I'm glad that we have collectively made Tony Blair a persona non grata, a symbol of rank hypocricy and sanctimony. Why Americans have to pretend their ex Commanders in Chief are secular saints is beyond me. Every living president, with the exception of Carter, are self-serving crooks. Hopefully Trump dispels the illusion by being so odious and open in his criminality that nobody will claim the position of President automatically makes one a moral figure.

[twenty42]

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.

Then you should be angrier with the Dems than the Republicans. They were given a government monopoly on a silver platter and they blew it.

And by the way, the fact that Obama based his whole campaign on destroying the legacy of the then-incumbent Republican president undermines your bipartisan soliloquy a little bit.

Very selective memory there: it's not like Bush needed any help in having his "legacy" undermined in the 2008 election. Him and his administration were widely despised across the board, almost all of his signature policies were being maligned and he spent his last few years careening from crisis to crisis.

Obama if anything was far too kind to his predecessor: the Bush administration's crimes and mismanagement were quickly thrown into the memory hole and Bush just became a figure that could pal around with Obama and Michelle like he isn't a despicable and degenerate war criminal.

I don't like to pretend that my country is perfect, but I'm glad that we have collectively made Tony Blair a persona non grata, a symbol of rank hypocricy and sanctimony. Why Americans have to pretend their ex Commanders in Chief are secular saints is beyond me. Every living president, with the exception of Carter, are self-serving crooks. Hopefully Trump dispels the illusion by being so odious and open in his criminality that nobody will claim the position of President automatically makes one a moral figure.

Liberals love GWB now. He has like a 65% approval rating. What changed?

[Antonio the Sixth]

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?

Actually, I do agree that the best road for the Courts to take would be to return to a greater judicial restraint (except in cases where democracy itself is at stake, like with gerrymandering). Of course, Naso is a f**king hypocrite about this because he had no problem with Citizens United or the dissent in NFIB v. Sebelius.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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.

Then you should be angrier with the Dems than the Republicans. They were given a government monopoly on a silver platter and they blew it.

And by the way, the fact that Obama based his whole campaign on destroying the legacy of the then-incumbent Republican president undermines your bipartisan soliloquy a little bit.

Very selective memory there: it's not like Bush needed any help in having his "legacy" undermined in the 2008 election. Him and his administration were widely despised across the board, almost all of his signature policies were being maligned and he spent his last few years careening from crisis to crisis.

Obama if anything was far too kind to his predecessor: the Bush administration's crimes and mismanagement were quickly thrown into the memory hole and Bush just became a figure that could pal around with Obama and Michelle like he isn't a despicable and degenerate war criminal.

I don't like to pretend that my country is perfect, but I'm glad that we have collectively made Tony Blair a persona non grata, a symbol of rank hypocricy and sanctimony. Why Americans have to pretend their ex Commanders in Chief are secular saints is beyond me. Every living president, with the exception of Carter, are self-serving crooks. Hopefully Trump dispels the illusion by being so odious and open in his criminality that nobody will claim the position of President automatically makes one a moral figure.

Liberals love GWB now. He has like a 65% approval rating. What changed?

Because people have memories like goldfish and have a tendency to believe the enemy of my enemy being a friend. And in American context, Presidents tend to be deified and viewed as personifications of the nation's spirit.

It's also not an uncommon thing for people to claim that their enemies from the past pale in comparison to the current threat. Hence why you get liberals claiming that they would have supported Nixon, or conservatives suggesting that Kennedy would be a conservative nowadays. I wouldn't be hugely surprised if Obama has a similarly undeserved revival in his reputation in ten years or so; with republicans saying things like "Obama was decent compared to this SOCIALIST TYRANT President Kamala Harris" (or whatever).

[7,052,770]

Liberals love GWB now. He has like a 65% approval rating. What changed?

Uh, liberals are the 35% who disapprove. His increase over the last decade comes from Republicans who disapproved while he was president remembering him fondly, and less politically active Democrats just being polite.

[here2view]

If Roe is overturned, it will go back to the states and most states will allow abortion within the first few months. The public is pretty clear they support abortion up to twenty weeks and oppose it after. This is also the mainstream in a couple of European nations.

Exactly, I support the 20 week concept and I'm hard pro-choice. At worst it'll be for the states to decide. Abortion will never been banned, only safe, legal abortion. It's the same reason why I'm against an AR ban or some of the more progressive gun controls pushes. Some bad people will still get their hands on guns; some women will still have unsafe abortions performed. I'm not willing to wash my hands of those women in that matter.

[forgotten manatee]

As for the political winds they will drastically change in 2020 or 2024. An old majority rooted in Reagan's revolution forty years ago is no longer able to command significant majorities in the body politic and has radicalized to maintain its slender hold. The radicalism represents in many ways the final death rattle. Look at the ending years of dying majorities. They are the most radical and supernova like before going out.

I want to pull the thread on that.. when else have we seen an activist majority in its dying years?

[Tekken_Guy]

Things have been going too far since 2015, if not before then.

I'm ashamed at some of the conditions in this country. I'm a Social Studies teacher - last year I had to teach middle schoolers about the Dylann Roof shooting and the Charlottesville riots... where did we go wrong as a country???

And those aren't even related to Trump, or the GOP. Roof happened while Obama was in office and Charlottesville likely still happens if he or Hillary were President. It's a separate, bigger issue in this country.

I don’t think Charlottesville would have happened with Obama or Hillary as president, especially if Trump never even campaigned. His rhetoric has made racist scum feel comfortable coming out of the woodwork, which is an uncomfortable truth that Trumpie clowns on here ignore, to their eternal shame. It’s not a coincidence that Nazis are seeking GOP nominations  post-2016.

Even if it did happen, I think Charlottesville would be a forgotten story under a different president.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Things have been going too far since 2015, if not before then.

I'm ashamed at some of the conditions in this country. I'm a Social Studies teacher - last year I had to teach middle schoolers about the Dylann Roof shooting and the Charlottesville riots... where did we go wrong as a country???

And those aren't even related to Trump, or the GOP. Roof happened while Obama was in office and Charlottesville likely still happens if he or Hillary were President. It's a separate, bigger issue in this country.

I don’t think Charlottesville would have happened with Obama or Hillary as president, especially if Trump never even campaigned. His rhetoric has made racist scum feel comfortable coming out of the woodwork, which is an uncomfortable truth that Trumpie clowns on here ignore, to their eternal shame. It’s not a coincidence that Nazis are seeking GOP nominations  post-2016.

Even if it did happen, I think Charlottesville would be a forgotten story under a different president.

[IceSpear]

Charlottesville already is a forgotten story except among political junkies.

[Bojack Horseman]

This is a visual of our country right now:



We’re on our way to where Cuba was after Castro got control: the smartest people fled on airplanes, the next smartest left on fishing boats, and the dumbest waited until things got so bad that they had to leave on rafts made of plywood and empty barrels. America is becoming a right-wing oligarchy dystopia and a shining example of the failure of neoliberalism and right-wing economics. We’re allowed to have gay marriage but everything else is controlled by the special interest few. If the religious right gets control of the GOP again, wouldn’t surprise me if they succeeded in turning America into a Christian theocracy.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Things went too far when Donald Trump became a serious presidential candidate. Three years later we are now too far gone, as the American experiment has mutated into the worst kind of Frankenstein monster.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Things went too far when Donald Trump became a serious presidential candidate. Three years later we are now too far gone, as the American experiment has mutated into the worst kind of Frankenstein monster.