Lets try that again....

if 2012 let your do it over again, who would you vote for this time

  • Hillary

    Votes: 11 57.9%
  • Obama

    Votes: 4 21.1%
  • Dennis Kusinich.

    Votes: 4 21.1%

  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .
Hillary might have given the appearance of "fighting back" more than President Obama has, but it doesn't mean she would have been any more effective against the wall of obstructionism that is today's GnOP.
She wouldn't have built that wall in the first place.

President Obama didn't build it...that wall is purely the invention of the GnOP who decided that their only goal was the failure of this President. They did that right out of the gate.
 
Hillary might have given the appearance of "fighting back" more than President Obama has, but it doesn't mean she would have been any more effective against the wall of obstructionism that is today's GnOP.
She wouldn't have built that wall in the first place.

President Obama didn't build it...that wall is purely the invention of the GnOP who decided that their only goal was the failure of this President. They did that right out of the gate.
It's fun to see the doe-eyed Obamaphiles looking like fools.
 
She wouldn't have built that wall in the first place.

President Obama didn't build it...that wall is purely the invention of the GnOP who decided that their only goal was the failure of this President. They did that right out of the gate.
It's fun to see the doe-eyed Obamaphiles looking like fools.

She doesn't recall all the ball spiking and grand standing by the dnc right after the elections.
 
Hillary might have given the appearance of "fighting back" more than President Obama has, but it doesn't mean she would have been any more effective against the wall of obstructionism that is today's GnOP.

Exctly what is wrong with a party that represents half of the country doing what they can to ensure the other party doesnt do what only the other half of the country wants?

Would you not expect the democratic party to be "obstructioinists" if they had a majority in the house while the senate and the president are republican?

Or do you feel it only is considered "obstructionism" when it is getting in the way of what YOU want?
 
President Obama didn't build it...that wall is purely the invention of the GnOP who decided that their only goal was the failure of this President. They did that right out of the gate.
It's fun to see the doe-eyed Obamaphiles looking like fools.

She doesn't recall all the ball spiking and grand standing by the dnc right after the elections.

Nor does she recall Pelosi marching through a group of rallying tea partyers with an oversized gavel touting her "win" as it pertained to the healthcare law....that was passed only with the help of a congressional tactic
 
Seems like Only in aMerica does the liberal wing hate their country.

Care to explain why? Liberals in Ireland still love Ireland.

I can live with them in peace no problems.

Y'all on the other hand are poison pills for your country.

:cuckoo:

That is the biggest bunch of BS, and rightwingers promote that all the time. "Liberals want to destroy America" you say. Give me a fucking break. Again, more bullshit and lies that made me leave the Republican Party.
 
Seems like Only in aMerica does the liberal wing hate their country.

Care to explain why? Liberals in Ireland still love Ireland.

I can live with them in peace no problems.

Y'all on the other hand are poison pills for your country.

:cuckoo:

That is the biggest bunch of BS, and rightwingers promote that all the time. "Liberals want to destroy America" you say. Give me a fucking break. Again, more bullshit and lies that made me leave the Republican Party.

And conservatives would rather see the country nose dive than back off obstructing progress.

Goes both ways.
 
Hillary might have given the appearance of "fighting back" more than President Obama has, but it doesn't mean she would have been any more effective against the wall of obstructionism that is today's GnOP.

Exctly what is wrong with a party that represents half of the country doing what they can to ensure the other party doesnt do what only the other half of the country wants?

Would you not expect the democratic party to be "obstructioinists" if they had a majority in the house while the senate and the president are republican?

Or do you feel it only is considered "obstructionism" when it is getting in the way of what YOU want?

There has NEVER been this level of obstructionism from either party in the past. Never before has any party said that their ONLY goal was to ensure the failure of the President.
 
Hillary might have given the appearance of "fighting back" more than President Obama has, but it doesn't mean she would have been any more effective against the wall of obstructionism that is today's GnOP.

Exctly what is wrong with a party that represents half of the country doing what they can to ensure the other party doesnt do what only the other half of the country wants?

Would you not expect the democratic party to be "obstructioinists" if they had a majority in the house while the senate and the president are republican?

Or do you feel it only is considered "obstructionism" when it is getting in the way of what YOU want?

There has NEVER been this level of obstructionism from either party in the past. Never before has any party said that their ONLY goal was to ensure the failure of the President.
:lol: Of course there hasn't!

Doe-eyed Obamaphiles. :lmao:
 
Hillary might have given the appearance of "fighting back" more than President Obama has, but it doesn't mean she would have been any more effective against the wall of obstructionism that is today's GnOP.

Exctly what is wrong with a party that represents half of the country doing what they can to ensure the other party doesnt do what only the other half of the country wants?

Would you not expect the democratic party to be "obstructioinists" if they had a majority in the house while the senate and the president are republican?

Or do you feel it only is considered "obstructionism" when it is getting in the way of what YOU want?

There has NEVER been this level of obstructionism from either party in the past. Never before has any party said that their ONLY goal was to ensure the failure of the President.
when a president makes it clear that he wants to change America (for good or bad is another debate)....you need to expect the opposing party to do what they can to stop him.

When a President makes it clear that he wasnt to spend upwards to 1 trillion dollars to stimulate the economy, you need to expect the opposing party who believe suych is a mistake to do what they can to stop him.

When a President wants to overhaul the healthcare system (for good or bad is another debate) and the opposing party believes such is not in the best interest of the country, you need to expect they will do what they can to stop him.

If the tables were turned...and a GOP candidate comes into office...and the senate is GOP majority...and the first move the GOP wants to make is to repeal healthcare....wouyld you not expect the democratic party to do what they can to stop them?

I would...and whereas I would hope they cant stop them, I would applaud their efforts as they represent their constuants.

You look at my posts....I NEVER criticize democratic politicians for the efforts...nor do I spin their intentions...nor do I comment on their intelligence....

It is politics...the two party system at work....I accept it and it works.....sure it stalls things at times....but in the end it works.

You seem to believe a passive GOP is ideal...but the truth is...such will result in a one party system in a short period of time...and you know what that leads to....

Is that what you want?
 
Gumming-Up-the-Works.jpg


The very Republican senators who filibustered Liu’s nomination once decried the tactic. “I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period,” said Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) in 2005. But under the Obama Administration, Alexander and his ilk have had a change of heart. Their level of obstructionism keeps reaching new heights.

According to a report [pdf] from the Alliance for Justice:

Of the 105 nominations submitted by President Obama during the first two years of his term, only 62—2 Supreme Court justices, plus 16 courts of appeals and 44 district court judges—were confirmed. That is the smallest percentage of judicial confirmations over the first two years of any presidency in American history.

Judicial vacancies increased from 55 to 97 during President Obama’s first two years, whereas under both President’s Bush and Clinton, vacancies declined.

Senate Republicans used every parliamentary tool they could to obstruct and delay President Obama’s nominees, including placing secret holds on each judicial nominee who reached the Senate floor, even those that had the support of Republican home-state senators. They also denied votes on 13 nominees at the end of the 111th Congress who received no Republican opposition in committee.

Today 53 Obama judicial nominees still have yet to be confirmed by the Senate. Of the 1132 executive and judicial branch nominations submitted to the Senate by President Obama, 223 nominees have yet to receive a vote on the Senate floor, according to White House data. That means that nearly 20 percent of Obama nominees have been blocked by Senate Republicans.

In response to this obstruction, Obama has filled 28 vacant positions via recess appointments. President Bush, in contrast, made 171 recess appointments during his presidency, including John Bolton for UN ambassador and two controversial judicial nominations, Charles Pickering and William Pryor, to the US Court of Appeals. To catch up with Bush, Obama would have to make roughly twenty-eight recess appointment per year until the end of his presidency, assuming he wins a second term and governs for eight years.​

GOP Obstructionism Reaches New Heights

It's being called historic obstructionism for a reason...
 
Personally I'm all for obstruction.

The art of comprimise is what got us into this mess, so a bunch of republicans have decided to stick to what they know to be right and not give the liberals an inch.

We should all be glad we didn't go with the dnc on the debt ceiling. Those idiots don't understand that the current debt is 95% of gdp. another 5% and it's all over.
 
If 2008 were a do over in 2012 what would democrats do?

Hillary or Obama.

I actually think Obama is doing a better job than Hillary would have. He has been more of a success on her signature issue.

I would have to go with Hilary. Not that I would vote for any of them, because I wouldnt.
 
I actually believe Hillary was more polarizing than Obama. And it isn't because she is a strong female. She is the antithesis of a strong female. She likes to use a guy as a safe harbor and stick her tongue out at the other guys and have him take the heat for her in exchange for allowing him to use her as a doormat. There have been lots of really effective strong female leaders like Ghandi, Thatcher and Golda Mieir.
 
I actually believe Hillary was more polarizing than Obama. And it isn't because she is a strong female. She is the antithesis of a strong female. She likes to use a guy as a safe harbor and stick her tongue out at the other guys and have him take the heat for her in exchange for allowing him to use her as a doormat. There have been lots of really effective strong female leaders like Ghandi, Thatcher and Golda Mieir.

Any woman that sticks with a man that consistantly cheats on her is useless.
 
Personally I'm all for obstruction.

The art of comprimise is what got us into this mess, so a bunch of republicans have decided to stick to what they know to be right and not give the liberals an inch.

We should all be glad we didn't go with the dnc on the debt ceiling. Those idiots don't understand that the current debt is 95% of gdp. another 5% and it's all over.

And I hope the Democrats and Progressives are taking notes for the next Republican president. :rolleyes:
 
Personally I'm all for obstruction.

The art of comprimise is what got us into this mess, so a bunch of republicans have decided to stick to what they know to be right and not give the liberals an inch.

We should all be glad we didn't go with the dnc on the debt ceiling. Those idiots don't understand that the current debt is 95% of gdp. another 5% and it's all over.

And I hope the Democrats and Progressives are taking notes for the next Republican president. :rolleyes:

So do I.

I think debate is a must.

I would hate for the GOP to do and get whatever they want......it will create even more of a divide in our country.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top