POLITICAL THREAD

[TheBlueMax]

How can you possibly be surprised by the GOP obstructing you on a Supreme Court justice vote after you have done your level-best since Day One to alienate every single member of the party---EVERY SINGLE ONE? That includes millions of Americans who do not share his ideology. At no time, not one freaking single time, has the strategy changed from "It's my way or the highway."

This is also absolutely not now, nor has it ever been, about race--this is about incompetent leadership by a president completely unable to unite a polarized nation and worse, unwilling to try to unite a fractured nation. This is about failed leadership, period. When that is your MO, what kind of response do you expect? He could have easily been a great president with compromise and a more congenial spirit given to all citizens of this nation. His failure to see we are a melting pot with different views is telling--he preaches diversity yet is unwilling to acknowledge and appreciate views on issues different from his own.

Additionally, did anyone with a brain expect him to do anything different this week? Judge Scalia's body was hardly cold before Obama announced he would act quickly to name a replacement, yes, by his Constitutional authority, but not typically done by a lame-duck president within a year of leaving office. Again, I would have bet my entire life savings he would do this--it was the perfect opportunity to push his far-left, bad-for-the-US agenda and to say to hell with MOST of you who don't share my far-left views (this Democratic Party is not anything close to the party of John F. Kennedy). The King speaks; the King acts. End of story.

Obama's greatest failure has been, without any question whatsoever, in making no effort (extremely poor leadership) at all to bring two parties together. No compromise on any issues whatsoever. He started it from the very minute he took his oath of office, and his legacy of abject failure bears it out. I applaud every single Republican who will obstruct like crazy. Were I a member of Congress, I would do the same. He gets what he deserves. The court will be just fine with eight justices until the next president is elected.

Finally, I'm for what is best for our country, and have been overly fair in my assessment of this president for seven years. President Obama created this problem totally by himself, not the Republicans. He has not done what is best for this country--he has shoved his ideology down our throats and continues to do so today, hence, Republican obstruction. You cannot lead people this way, and it cannot be blamed on Bush or any other reason--this is all on Obama.

 

[812scottj]

He's smarter than us. Why can't you understand that? Worst president ever.

 

[UKGrad93]

Maybe he will just go ahead and appoint himself to the vacancy.

 

[GomezH2O]

im not reading all that

 

[GhostVol]

Obama has been, and will remain, the sickest joke ever played on minority America. He's done more for gays and Greens than the black community. And we have fallen into the same trap with Hillary. As long as we settle for scraps instead of steaks, the Democratic party will give us fancy words instead of real opportunity. Not a Sanders supporter (I fought the Communists. Bernie is a textbook ideologue). He is a true believer that will NEVER be elected tho. Free stuff from him has its appeal...but the bill will have to be paid. Eventually.

 

[Robcatt24]

 

[KingOfBBN]

View embedded media

Love it or leave it - Toby Keith

Where dose free phones at?

 

[KingOfBBN]

(The following is my opinion as someone who hates all politicians, but views the right as having a much more negative image among young people)

Nothing.

Generally speaking, this is a moderate nation but the turds on each side are louder. The rural parts (where most of us live) are right-center to far right. The urban parts and both coasts tend to lean left-center to far left.

The GOP is often seen by the common person who cares little about politics as "the man" or "the establishment," thus not cool.

Popular culture has always been about what's "cool" and young people drive that train.

Name the last conservative political figure who the average Joe thought was "cool" and not some crotchety old rich guy. Slick Willy Clinton and Barry Obama, like it or not, was/is considered "cool" by the average person under 40, politics aside.

The "liberal media" plays a role in painting the GOP as a bunch of lame ass squares. The GOP, in my worthless opinion, only has a policy problem on the social side because they MUST have the evangelical vote to win national races, and appeasing the theocrats with Jesus talk is the only way to do it.

The Republicans' main problem is with image. Nobody likes pissed off, yelling guy. Especially if he's richer than the guy he's yelling at.

I know when I think of cool and trying to relate to the youth, this automatically comes to mind...

In all seriousness, most politicians are going to be seen in this manner because they're adults. It's the same reason why when we grow up, we don't dress and talk like 19-year-olds. However, Bill Clinton is likable and charismatic. Obama is charismatic too although I detest that POS but his people were smart enough to pander to the celebrity obsessed culture and has been on so many talk shows and reality shows. That's why he referenced Jay Z songs, released his favorite shows he watches that just happened to be the ones everyone else likes and pushed his "cool hip black guy" image when the desired audience was around. It paid off.

Like I said, we live in a different time and not many presidents are going to be considered "cool" to college kids and that goes for both parties. And you're right about having to pander to the Christian crowd. They are handcuffed in that regard where as a Dem can have an "anything goes mentality." Want to pretend a guy that chops his dick off is now a woman and should use the same bathroom as your kid? Cool. No problem on the Dem side. No standards to disappoint.

I will say, you know Bush was probably pretty cool to hang out with and probably smoke a j with.

 

[pikespeak1]

There's already a politics thread, moron.

What's with the name calling?

 

[buckethead1978]

let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country,

 

[AustinTXCat]

How can you possibly be surprised by the GOP obstructing you on a Supreme Court justice vote after you have done your level-best since Day One to alienate every single member of the party---EVERY SINGLE ONE. That includes millions of Americans who do not share his ideology. At no time, not one freaking single time, has the strategy changed from "It's my way or the highway."

This is also absolutely not now, nor has it ever been, about race--this is about incompetent leadership by a president completely unable to unite a polarized nation and worse, unwilling to try to unite a fractured nation. This is about failed leadership, period. When that is your MO, what kind of response do you expect? He could have easily been a great president with compromise and a more congenial spirit given to all citizens of this nation. His failure to see we are a melting pot with different views is telling--he preaches diversity yet is unwilling to acknowledge and appreciate views on issues different from his own.

Additionally, did anyone with a brain expect him to do anything different this week? Judge Scalia's body was hardly cold before Obama announced he would act quickly to name a replacement, yes, by his Constitutional authority, but not typically done by a lame-duck president within a year of leaving office. Again, I would have bet my entire life savings he would do this--it was the perfect opportunity to push his far-left, bad-for-the-US agenda and to say to hell with MOST of you who don't share my far-left views (this Democratic Party is not anything close to the party of John F. Kennedy). The King speaks; the King acts. End of story.

Obama's greatest failure has been, without any question whatsoever, in making no effort (extremely poor leadership) at all to bring two parties together. No compromise on any issues whatsoever. He started it from the very minute he took his oath of office, and his legacy of abject failure bears it out. I applaud every single Republican who will obstruct like crazy. Were I a member of Congress, I would do the same. He gets what he deserves. The court will be just fine with eight justices until the next president is elected.

Finally, I'm for what is best for our country, and have been overly fair in my assessment of this president for seven years. President Obama created this problem totally by himself, not the Republicans. He has not done what is best for this country--he has shoved his ideology down our throats and continues to do so today, hence, Republican obstruction. You cannot lead people this way, and it cannot be blamed on Bush or any other reason--this is all on Obama.

<- - - - - grabs popcorn. Oh, and in before the move and/or lock.

 

[wkycatfan]

Front page story on usatoday.com about polling that says both Hillary and Trump "scare" voters. it's agenda polling at its finest - I don't recall them asking if Obama scared anyone in '08 with his claims of wanting to fundamentally transform the country and push back the tides at the same time. Still, they are on to something. Some say turnout will be up or way up in November, with this Supreme Court thing just fanning the flames. Me, I'm not so sure. I could see a situation where - assuming Trump and Clinton are the candidates - that huge numbers of voters just say, no, think I'll stay home. I usually roll my eyes at that kind of drama - but in this case, I might just stay home......(Sticking to my original assertion: support for Trump = a vote for Clinton, since Trump can't win, IMO)......

If it's Trump vs Hillary, I won't stay home, but I'll go write somebody in.

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

Senate Republicans backing down on not holding hearing for the President's Supreme Court pick in 5, 4, 3.....McConnell needs to be replaced. Should have just kept their mouths shut, let the President pick his nominee and go from there.

 

[Tychorz]

Additionally, did anyone with a brain expect him to do anything different this week? Judge Scalia's body was hardly cold before Obama announced he would act quickly to name a replacement, yes, by his Constitutional authority, but not typically done by a lame-duck president within a year of leaving office. Again, I would have bet my entire life savings he would do this--it was the perfect opportunity to push his far-left, bad-for-the-US agenda and to say to hell with MOST of you who don't share my far-left views (this Democratic Party is not anything close to the party of John F. Kennedy). The King speaks; the King acts. End of story.

First, the GOP leadership released a statement about blocking any Obama appointee LONG before Obama announced he would name a replacement.

Second, since 1900, there are zero instances of a lame duck president failing to nominate a Supreme Court justice in his final year. And there's several instances of it happening. To say it's "not typically done" could not be further from the truth. Furthermore, in every instance, the Senate has also confirmed the nominee. If the senate blocks an Obama appointee, that would unprecedented in the modern era. But don't let facts get in your way. http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

Third, it's difficult to say Obama is saying "to hell with MOST (your emphasis on most, not mine) of you who don't share my far left views" when the GOP has won just one presidential majority in the last quarter century. That, and every poll you look at Stating the nation is a liberal majority.

Also, Scalia was not a judge, he was a Justice.

 

[JHB4UK]

senate GOP won't back down & vote on Obama's nominee, that would be a suicide pact driving away base voters already disgusted enough with them to make Donald Freaking Trump the leading pres primary candidate

a couple of them showed they had no nuts and could not take even 48 hrs of harsh media criticism, that's all

 

[P19978]

Obama is a history-making disaster of a POTUS; why should anyone listen to him?

His ineptness has put the Repubs back in power in Congress; and will likely do so in the next POTUS election.

Let him nominate anyone he wants; let the Senate go through the motions. Intelligent people will understand the process.

 

[JHB4UK]

That, and every poll you look at Stating the nation is a liberal majority

LOL

well, except the poll of the House of Representative members who have been voted in by the nation to be GOP majority 18 of the last 22 years. And how many governors in this nation are GOP? 31 Rep, 18 Dem, 1 indy. State legislatures surely show this is a liberal majority country - oops, no it doesnt, 68 to an insignificant 30.

facts suck, numbers suck, reality suck when you are clearly demonstratively wrong.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

he preaches diversity yet is unwilling to acknowledge and appreciate views on issues different from his own.

Excellent post, but I especially liked this. He preaches diversity, but practices division. The most disappointing part was, in the beginning everyone was more than willing to allow him to lead. He won a nobel prize just a few days after taking office. What a waste of what couldve been a great presidency.

Maybe he will just go ahead and appoint himself to the vacancy.

This would surprise, yet not shock me. That fact it shouldnt shock anyone if he did it; speaks volumes.

let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. Barack Obama is undertaking a systematic effort to change this country,

Undoubtedly Rubio is somewhere blankly repeating this in a loop.

Senate Republicans backing down on not holding hearing for the President's Supreme Court pick in 5, 4, 3.....McConnell needs to be replaced. Should have just kept their mouths shut, let the President pick his nominee and go from there.

Exactly. Publicity backlash will be brutal enough. They need to let him pick the nominee, which he's well within his rights to do.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

every poll you look at Stating the nation is a liberal majority

Just a false statement altogether. Look at election results. The only elections the Dems win consistently is the presidential election, and thats because California makes it nearly impossible for a Rep to win.

 

[Tychorz]

LOL

well, except the poll of the House of Representative members who have been voted in by the nation to be GOP majority 18 of the last 22 years. And how many governors in this nation are GOP? 31 Rep, 18 Dem, 1 indy. State legislatures surely show this is a liberal majority country - oops, no it doesnt, 68 to an insignificant 30.

facts suck, numbers suck, reality suck when you are clearly demonstratively wrong.

Want to compare straight up and down numbers? What's the state populations of those GOP governor led states vs democratic led states? Thanks to gerrymandering, in 2012, the GOP won just 48% of the popular vote despite a lopsided victory in the house. Ousting incumbents is hard, therefore, they only needed 45% of the popular vote in 2014 to keep majority. The house has done a remarkable job of keeping themselves in office despite being less popular. It's like, some type of magic you don't understand. http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

You can also point to the fact that self identifying democrats just don't vote in midterms. Thanks millennials. http://www.iop.harvard.edu/likely-m...e&utm_medium=hero&utm_campaign=Fall2014Survey

 

[Bill Cosby]

I'm sure this is going to go over well for the publisher. Going to really find out how the religion of peace handles insults.

"Islamic Rape of Europe"

 

[Tychorz]

Just a false statement altogether. Look at election results. The only elections the Dems win consistently is the presidential election, and thats because California makes it nearly impossible for a Rep to win.

What does California matter, Dems win the popular vote, not just the electoral college. Quoting California is absolutely irrelevant. Nonetheless, Elections are not indicative of how the country feels, as stated everywhere you'll ever read ever, democrats just simply don't show out like republicans at the polls, especially midterms. Take, for example, a Harvard study (sourced above) showing how people who identify as liberal are much more prominent than those who actually vote.

"But the most stunning finding came from the question of which party young voters wanted to see control Congress next year. Among all respondents, 50 percent chose the Democrats and 43 percent picked Republicans. But among the much smaller subset of respondents who said they would "definitely" vote this fall, the GOP won, 51 percent to 47 percent."

That's an eleven point swing because the Dems simply don't vote. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Tychorz]

It's like I'm teaching polysci 101 in explaining voting demographics.

 

[Bill Cosby]

Obama surely did what the country wanted with Obamacare, correct? Definitely didn't say to hell with most of you while I stick this up your ass. I'm sure there are polls evidencing that. And the Republican obstructionists likely suffered historic defeats since they tried to stop something most of the country wanted, right?

 

[Big_Blue79]

but not typically done by a lame-duck president within a year of leaving office.

Statement unsupported by fact.

If it's Trump vs Hillary, I won't stay home, but I'll go write somebody in.

This is the correct way to do it. Every presidential election year, > 30% of people don't vote. That signals that your vote doesn't matter in the short or long term.

Second, since 1900, there are zero instances of a lame duck president failing to nominate a Supreme Court justice in his final year. And there's several instances of it happening. To say it's "not typically done" could not be further from the truth. Furthermore, in every instance, the Senate has also confirmed the nominee. If the senate blocks an Obama appointee, that would unprecedented in the modern era. But don't let facts get in your way. http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

Statement supported by fact.

Maybe he will just go ahead and appoint himself to the vacancy.

No.

This would surprise, yet not shock me. That fact it shouldnt shock anyone if he did it; speaks volumes.

Really? A sitting president appointing himself to the Supreme Court would not shock you? Something that's never happened in history would not shock you? A WH aide (Eric Schultz) said "The press corps is officially unhinged," in response to questions about Obama appointing Obama. A Huffington Post writer authored an article called "Why Obama Should Nominate Barack Obama for the Supreme Court Vacancy," and even he (who is apparently in favor of this) states "[t]here's roughly a zero percent chance this'll happen." I would be shocked, but maybe my definition of something shocking is something that has never happened before, something that has not been seriously floated as an idea, something that has a close to a zero percent chance of happening. So maybe this is a difference in surprise/shock between us. I didn't even mention that Obama nominating himself for the White House would literally melt half the Internet, have zero chance of getting confirmed (literally zero), and increase the risk of a Republican president filling the vacancy (unless Obama will simultaneously orchestrate devious schemes to ensure an D president?).

Now, if he were appointed after leaving the White House, well there's precedent for that - Taft. And it wouldn't involve as much political peril as a president appointing himself.

Would you be shocked if Obama orchestrated some sort of government emergency and from that he seized another term in office and eventually became dictator for life ushering in the end times? I would be shocked. I only ask because I have in laws who have said that such a scenario wouldn't surprise them.

 

[Mojocat]

That, and every poll you look at Stating the nation is a liberal majority.

uhh, what? Pew has done polling on political self-identification since the late 60s, Gallup since the early 90s. Those who self-identify as conservative have always outnumbered those who view themselves as either moderate or liberal. The most recent quote I could find: "Conservatives continued to outnumber moderates and liberals in the U.S. population in 2014. However, their 14-percentage-point edge over liberals last year, 38% vs. 24%, is the smallest in Gallup's trends since 1992." 1992 is the first year Gallup did that survey - so a 14 point edge is the smallest on record. Meaning, conservatives outnumber liberals by at least by 1.6x.......

Now, if you mean to say more people are Democrat than Republican, that is true.

Which begs the question, why are there more conservatives than liberals (in many years, 2x as many) and yet there are more Dems than Rs? I think the answer lies in the earlier discussion about culture and media influence......

 

[JHB4UK]

That's an eleven point swing because the Dems simply don't vote. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

well they don't. not as far as I or any elected official are concerned.

and thank god, who the touch wants this country governed or policies enacted for the best interest of the slacker lazy slob liberals who dont even bother to register or vote

if I were an Obamalike dictator who flaunts the constitution and enacts laws without checks or balances, this country would go to voting being a precious earned right by those who have skin in the game, those who earn an income and pay into funding the state and/or own property in our country

 

[Tychorz]

Barely half the country votes in presidential elections. Well less than half in midterms. Republicans are more likely to vote than democrats. More people identify democrat than republican. Hey kids, welcome to voter demographics 101 with Tychorz.

 

[Tychorz]

well they don't. not as far as I or any elected official are concerned.

and thank god, who the touch wants this country governed or policies enacted for the best interest of the slacker lazy slob liberals who dont even bother to register or vote

if I were an Obamalike dictator who flaunts the constitution and enacts laws without checks or balances, this country would go to voting being a precious earned right by those who have skin in the game, those who earn an income and pay into funding the state and/or own property in our country

I agree, maybe even have a test before voting...

god I love the constituents of this state.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

It's like I'm teaching polysci 101 in explaining voting demographics.

Youre best argument is there are people out there, somewhere, who slip through the cracks and cant be measured. But theyre probably liberal. Ok...

Really? A sitting president appointing himself to the Supreme Court would not shock you? Something that's never happened in history would not shock you? A WH aide (Eric Schultz) said "The press corps is officially unhinged," in response to questions about Obama appointing Obama. A Huffington Post writer authored an article called "Why Obama Should Nominate Barack Obama for the Supreme Court Vacancy," and even he (who is apparently in favor of this) states "[t]here's roughly a zero percent chance this'll happen." I would be shocked, but maybe my definition of something shocking is something that has never happened before, something that has not been seriously floated as an idea, something that has a close to a zero percent chance of happening. So maybe this is a difference in surprise/shock between us. I didn't even mention that Obama nominating himself for the White House would literally melt half the Internet, have zero chance of getting confirmed (literally zero), and increase the risk of a Republican president filling the vacancy (unless Obama will simultaneously orchestrate devious schemes to ensure an D president?).

Yes it would be unprecedented and otherwise shocking. Except this is the most egotistical president of all time. Like I said, Id be surprised; not shocked.

 

[Mojocat]

^^ He keeps bouncing back and forth between liberal vs conservative and republican vs democrat, as though the words were interchangeable. You'd think someone qualified to teach voter demographics 101 would know the difference.....

 

[P19978]

^^ He keeps bouncing back and forth between liberal vs conservative and republican vs democrat, as though the changes were interchangeable. You'd think someone qualified to teach voter demographics 101 would know the difference.....

The key word is "qualified".

 

[Bill Cosby]

(unless Obama will simultaneously orchestrate devious schemes to ensure an D president?).

Duh.

Obama resigns from office, Joe Biden takes over the Presidency, nominates Obama, (Joe Biden runs for President as an incumbent since he apparently is an actual viable D alternative since Bernie Sanders and Hilary suck so bad Biden looks competent), D's keep office and Obama continues his master plan to fundamentally transform the country by rubber stamping all his unconstitutional policies that are currently in the courts.

 

[Bill Cosby]

And honestly, if we're talking shocking, the only thing shocking Obama could do at this point is actually try to reach across the aisle or not be a completely narcissistic head up his ass radical left wing asshole.

Anything he does underhanded, shady, devious, illegal, etc. is really just par for the course.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Which begs the question, why are there more conservatives than liberals (in many years, 2x as many) and yet there are more Dems than Rs? I think the answer lies in the earlier discussion about culture and media influence......

Maybe, but to the extent you're implying there is "the answer" as in one answer, doubtful. For example, could also be that the Venn diagram overlap of conservative and Republican is greater than the overlap of liberal and Democrat. I recall not that long ago on this forum a discussion of liberal being a dirty word, so to speak. As another example, it could be that the Democrat party attracts more independents. Or that self-identification as a liberal is less likely to those that are, in fact, liberal (an accusation many on this board make weekly). Or that going from self-identified conservative/liberal, which is, what, hovering slightly north of 50% of all surveyed? directly to party affiliation misses a significant percentage (like > 40%) of all surveyed. Hard to separate out cause and effect for this stuff.

 

[Big_Blue79]

Yes it would be unprecedented and otherwise shocking. Except this is the most egotistical president of all time. Like I said, Id be surprised; not shocked.

More than FDR, who stayed in office so long we amended the Constitution? More than Woodrow Wilson, who said that God ordained his presidency and no mortal could have stopped him? Teddy "Truck Nuts for Nuts" Roosevelt? Richard Milhouse Nixon? Clinton? Wasn't Lyndon Johnson famous for his braggadocio and literally pissed on his Secret Serviceman?

 

[From-the-stands]

Trump leading by wide margin in South Carolina - the South is going to be kind to him.

Also reporting Trump leads in the following states according to the latest polls:
+26 Nevada
+17 Michigan
+6 Virginia
+5 Oklahoma
+18 New York

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/trump-verge-his-biggest-victory-yet-n519986

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

Watching Cruz meltdown on TV right now.

LMAO that Trump had his lawyers send Cruz a legal "cease and desist" letter.

 

[From-the-stands]

Watching Cruz meltdown on TV right now.

He is a liar. He says Trump would do away with the 2nd amendment.

 

[Mojocat]

Maybe, but to the extent you're implying there is "the answer" as in one answer, doubtful. For example, could also be that the Venn diagram overlap of conservative and Republican is greater than the overlap of liberal and Democrat. I recall not that long ago on this forum a discussion of liberal being a dirty word, so to speak. As another example, it could be that the Democrat party attracts more independents. Or that self-identification as a liberal is less likely to those that are, in fact, liberal (an accusation many on this board make weekly). Or that going from self-identified conservative/liberal, which is, what, hovering slightly north of 50% of all surveyed? directly to party affiliation misses a significant percentage (like > 40%) of all surveyed. Hard to separate out cause and effect for this stuff.

oh, yes, it's a complicated set of circumstances with no one obvious answer. many things go into that.....