America is a 'CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC,' not a Democracy...

[Dante]

The link below should get you to my pictures gallery...most of which deal with this subject.....

Republic is really just the Latin term for
Democracy
Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

False, and laughably ignorant.

It is true and your the one thats ignorant..tho any ignorance is not laughable.

check out my gallery..and refute the founders

enough already with your pathetic gallery!

 

[Dante]

I consider myself a leftist, registrered democrat, so I think you got the partisan comment wrong. Ive debated that ad nauseum elswhere tho

I abhor leftism and rightism. I support baggism and shaggism.

Seriously though, I left the Democratic party over issues of a leftward progressive coup (Dean/Obama). I am and always have been a liberal. I have been embarrassed and upset at leftists who would kill speech they do not like, yet claim to be liberals. I guess we share some beliefs and goals, but would seriously differ on how to get there

no one wants to kill speech,...some like me...are interested in coming up with ways to make the boradcast of speech farier.

but structural changes to our legislative procedures would help our country also.

Making any speech fairer means censorship against free speech.
Some of left are killing speech.
Political Correctness is killing free speech
Liberal Colleges will not allow Conservative speakers or pro life activists speak.
Go against a lib professor be afraid to get a low grade.
Just to mention a few.

I dont think making speech fairer means censorship, tho it is an area to be careful in, its is the broadcast of speech that is the problem....the money that buys broadcasting of speech when the average joe cant buy the same amount

The average Joe should be able to speak louder by convincing more voices to join in unison.

Americans need to stop equating broadcasted speech with truth and facts

 

[bendog]

They are not interchangeable.
There is a difference and those of us who are 55 and older were taught the difference when we were in 5th or 6th grade.
Now they are being taught that they are interchangeable but they are not.
The Democrats have a real problem with our Republic that limits the power of the Majority. Harry Reid is a perfect example of it. Another example was when they passed the new Health Care Act without the minority votes.
In our form of Republic Government, the Majority rule with the consent of the minority. That bill was passed without any minority votes. That is a Democracy.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority.

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

YOur whole argument is based on a culture war philosophy and a dislike of liberals Democrats, leftists socialists and others...

it's sort of sad that you are immovable even in the face of clear evidence that any rational and reasonable person would avvept

It has nothing to do with either party.
It is about facts not opinion.
You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.

"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...

There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats. Hollywood has it's own agenda that is separate from the Democratic party. Just ask any Democrat who has angered them.

The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!

The theory went like this. With large majorities in the House and Senate, it was obvious that lots of Democratic bills would pass. But the White House would be generous and make concessions to Republicans who were willing to leap on the bandwagon. Consequently, incumbent Republicans from states Obama won (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada) would be eager to cut deals in which they backed Obama bills in exchange for key concessions. With that process under way, many Republicans who weren't even that vulnerable would be eager to cut deals as well, in search of a piece of the action. As a result, bills would pass the Senate with large 70- to 75-vote majorities, and Obama would be seen as the game-changing president who healed American politics and got things done.

McConnell's counter plan was to prevent those deals. As McConnell told Josh Green, the key to eroding Obama's popularity was denying him the sheen of bipartisanship, and that meant keep Republicans united in opposition:

"Reporters underestimate how powerful the calendar is," says Jim Manley, the former communications director for Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. "Say you want to break a filibuster. On Monday, you file cloture on a motion to proceed for a vote on Wednesday. Assuming you get it, your opponents are allowed 30 hours of debate post-cloture on the motion to proceed. That takes you to Friday, and doesn't cover amendments. The following Monday you file cloture on the bill itself, vote Wednesday, then 30 more hours of debate, and suddenly two weeks have gone by, for something that's not even controversial." All of this has slowed Senate business to a crawl.

"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."

To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.

Mitch McConnell may be the greatest strategist in contemporary politics - Vox​

​

I have no idea how Peach feels about McConnell, but I'm pretty sure he/she has no love for Republicans who, for example, voted to expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs. The dislike is more towards progressives.

I never really understood what stoked McConnell's distain of Obama. Obama carries a huge ego, but by all accounts he's not a bad guy one on one. But, imo, it really came down to the individual mandate and "ordering" all citizens purchase "at least this much" insurance. I don't see how any republican could have compromised to accept that, and without it Obama couldn't get universal coverage, and that's what he promised Ted to get his endorsement and Hillary under the bus.

Conversely, I think Obama and Boehner really did try to reach compromises during the first term, but in the end I think the White House was correct in concluded Boehner couldn't deliver a pizza let alone a vote on an overall spending bill that reduced the deficits with 75% spending cuts and 25% new revenues.

If your read what others have McConnell saying he is planning to obstruct Obama before the PPACA is even on the table -- it was about keeping a hugely popular President from getting any more popular and winning hearts and minds of Americans with anything good. This is why Republicans ended up against what they were for before.

Brilliant strategy. I admire McConnell's skills. Yet I do not think most who defend him or dislike Democrats like looking at the facts - be that what they are.

I think the reason republicans ended up being against stuff they were once for (the individual mandate for example) was the tea party. W was a bad word for much of the gop. Even reasonable people like Frum were openly saying W was not a conservative. That got him run out of the party, but it was the truth. Then, enter Obama, to whom small govt folks was an anathema. Slick actually was fine with welfare reform and a smaller deficit. Obama was a black LBJ. LOL

McConnell's strategy found a happy spot in time. Bob Bennett lost his seat over the mandate, TARP and less so earmarks. It was a good time to be against everything.

I should have restated that what I don't, didn't, understand was how Obama couldn't have left out total non-starters (shovel ready from the stimulus) and the mandate from healthcare. I don't think McConnell had a lock on every gop senator's heart and mind.

 

[peach174]

They are not interchangeable.
There is a difference and those of us who are 55 and older were taught the difference when we were in 5th or 6th grade.
Now they are being taught that they are interchangeable but they are not.
The Democrats have a real problem with our Republic that limits the power of the Majority. Harry Reid is a perfect example of it. Another example was when they passed the new Health Care Act without the minority votes.
In our form of Republic Government, the Majority rule with the consent of the minority. That bill was passed without any minority votes. That is a Democracy.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority.

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

YOur whole argument is based on a culture war philosophy and a dislike of liberals Democrats, leftists socialists and others...

it's sort of sad that you are immovable even in the face of clear evidence that any rational and reasonable person would avvept

It has nothing to do with either party.
It is about facts not opinion.
You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.

"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...

There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats. Hollywood has it's own agenda that is separate from the Democratic party. Just ask any Democrat who has angered them.

The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!

The theory went like this. With large majorities in the House and Senate, it was obvious that lots of Democratic bills would pass. But the White House would be generous and make concessions to Republicans who were willing to leap on the bandwagon. Consequently, incumbent Republicans from states Obama won (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada) would be eager to cut deals in which they backed Obama bills in exchange for key concessions. With that process under way, many Republicans who weren't even that vulnerable would be eager to cut deals as well, in search of a piece of the action. As a result, bills would pass the Senate with large 70- to 75-vote majorities, and Obama would be seen as the game-changing president who healed American politics and got things done.

McConnell's counter plan was to prevent those deals. As McConnell told Josh Green, the key to eroding Obama's popularity was denying him the sheen of bipartisanship, and that meant keep Republicans united in opposition:

"Reporters underestimate how powerful the calendar is," says Jim Manley, the former communications director for Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. "Say you want to break a filibuster. On Monday, you file cloture on a motion to proceed for a vote on Wednesday. Assuming you get it, your opponents are allowed 30 hours of debate post-cloture on the motion to proceed. That takes you to Friday, and doesn't cover amendments. The following Monday you file cloture on the bill itself, vote Wednesday, then 30 more hours of debate, and suddenly two weeks have gone by, for something that's not even controversial." All of this has slowed Senate business to a crawl.

"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."

To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.

Mitch McConnell may be the greatest strategist in contemporary politics - Vox​

​

They are not interchangeable.
There is a difference and those of us who are 55 and older were taught the difference when we were in 5th or 6th grade.
Now they are being taught that they are interchangeable but they are not.
The Democrats have a real problem with our Republic that limits the power of the Majority. Harry Reid is a perfect example of it. Another example was when they passed the new Health Care Act without the minority votes.
In our form of Republic Government, the Majority rule with the consent of the minority. That bill was passed without any minority votes. That is a Democracy.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority.

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

YOur whole argument is based on a culture war philosophy and a dislike of liberals Democrats, leftists socialists and others...

it's sort of sad that you are immovable even in the face of clear evidence that any rational and reasonable person would avvept

It has nothing to do with either party.
It is about facts not opinion.
You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.

"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...

There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats. Hollywood has it's own agenda that is separate from the Democratic party. Just ask any Democrat who has angered them.

The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!

The theory went like this. With large majorities in the House and Senate, it was obvious that lots of Democratic bills would pass. But the White House would be generous and make concessions to Republicans who were willing to leap on the bandwagon. Consequently, incumbent Republicans from states Obama won (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada) would be eager to cut deals in which they backed Obama bills in exchange for key concessions. With that process under way, many Republicans who weren't even that vulnerable would be eager to cut deals as well, in search of a piece of the action. As a result, bills would pass the Senate with large 70- to 75-vote majorities, and Obama would be seen as the game-changing president who healed American politics and got things done.

McConnell's counter plan was to prevent those deals. As McConnell told Josh Green, the key to eroding Obama's popularity was denying him the sheen of bipartisanship, and that meant keep Republicans united in opposition:

"Reporters underestimate how powerful the calendar is," says Jim Manley, the former communications director for Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. "Say you want to break a filibuster. On Monday, you file cloture on a motion to proceed for a vote on Wednesday. Assuming you get it, your opponents are allowed 30 hours of debate post-cloture on the motion to proceed. That takes you to Friday, and doesn't cover amendments. The following Monday you file cloture on the bill itself, vote Wednesday, then 30 more hours of debate, and suddenly two weeks have gone by, for something that's not even controversial." All of this has slowed Senate business to a crawl.

"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."

To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.

Mitch McConnell may be the greatest strategist in contemporary politics - Vox​

​

You must have missed the remarks I made about Jeb Bush and my past and present anti McCain remarks.
I also do not like Boehner or McConnell.

I never said that the main stream media did not criticize the Democrats.

I guess you do not understand how what you write is viewed by most other people.

You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.

How do you get what I said above as main stream media does not criticize the Democrats?
I said the media would be screaming their heads off about Republicans passing a huge bill with no Democrats votes.
You are the one who said that not me.

 

[Dante]

YOur whole argument is based on a culture war philosophy and a dislike of liberals Democrats, leftists socialists and others...

it's sort of sad that you are immovable even in the face of clear evidence that any rational and reasonable person would avvept

It has nothing to do with either party.
It is about facts not opinion.
You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.

"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...

There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats. Hollywood has it's own agenda that is separate from the Democratic party. Just ask any Democrat who has angered them.

The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!

The theory went like this. With large majorities in the House and Senate, it was obvious that lots of Democratic bills would pass. But the White House would be generous and make concessions to Republicans who were willing to leap on the bandwagon. Consequently, incumbent Republicans from states Obama won (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada) would be eager to cut deals in which they backed Obama bills in exchange for key concessions. With that process under way, many Republicans who weren't even that vulnerable would be eager to cut deals as well, in search of a piece of the action. As a result, bills would pass the Senate with large 70- to 75-vote majorities, and Obama would be seen as the game-changing president who healed American politics and got things done.

McConnell's counter plan was to prevent those deals. As McConnell told Josh Green, the key to eroding Obama's popularity was denying him the sheen of bipartisanship, and that meant keep Republicans united in opposition:

"Reporters underestimate how powerful the calendar is," says Jim Manley, the former communications director for Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. "Say you want to break a filibuster. On Monday, you file cloture on a motion to proceed for a vote on Wednesday. Assuming you get it, your opponents are allowed 30 hours of debate post-cloture on the motion to proceed. That takes you to Friday, and doesn't cover amendments. The following Monday you file cloture on the bill itself, vote Wednesday, then 30 more hours of debate, and suddenly two weeks have gone by, for something that's not even controversial." All of this has slowed Senate business to a crawl.

"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."

To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.

Mitch McConnell may be the greatest strategist in contemporary politics - Vox​

​

YOur whole argument is based on a culture war philosophy and a dislike of liberals Democrats, leftists socialists and others...

it's sort of sad that you are immovable even in the face of clear evidence that any rational and reasonable person would avvept

It has nothing to do with either party.
It is about facts not opinion.
You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.

"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...

There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats. Hollywood has it's own agenda that is separate from the Democratic party. Just ask any Democrat who has angered them.

The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!

The theory went like this. With large majorities in the House and Senate, it was obvious that lots of Democratic bills would pass. But the White House would be generous and make concessions to Republicans who were willing to leap on the bandwagon. Consequently, incumbent Republicans from states Obama won (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada) would be eager to cut deals in which they backed Obama bills in exchange for key concessions. With that process under way, many Republicans who weren't even that vulnerable would be eager to cut deals as well, in search of a piece of the action. As a result, bills would pass the Senate with large 70- to 75-vote majorities, and Obama would be seen as the game-changing president who healed American politics and got things done.

McConnell's counter plan was to prevent those deals. As McConnell told Josh Green, the key to eroding Obama's popularity was denying him the sheen of bipartisanship, and that meant keep Republicans united in opposition:

"Reporters underestimate how powerful the calendar is," says Jim Manley, the former communications director for Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. "Say you want to break a filibuster. On Monday, you file cloture on a motion to proceed for a vote on Wednesday. Assuming you get it, your opponents are allowed 30 hours of debate post-cloture on the motion to proceed. That takes you to Friday, and doesn't cover amendments. The following Monday you file cloture on the bill itself, vote Wednesday, then 30 more hours of debate, and suddenly two weeks have gone by, for something that's not even controversial." All of this has slowed Senate business to a crawl.

"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."

To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.

Mitch McConnell may be the greatest strategist in contemporary politics - Vox​

​

You must have missed the remarks I made about Jeb Bush and my past and present anti McCain remarks.
I also do not like Boehner or McConnell.

I never said that the main stream media did not criticize the Democrats.

I guess you do not understand how what you write is viewed by most other people.

You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.

How do you get what I said above as main stream media does not criticize the Democrats?
I said the media would be screaming their heads off about Republicans passing a huge bill with no Democrats votes.
You are the one who said that not me.

If the Democrats had had a plan to obstruct that would have happened before, but it didn't because when the GOP ran things Democrats had no Tea Party faction of their own and had no seriously popular President to contend with while losing both chambers of the Congress.

Just because some might have stomped and screamed would not have made a diffference in principle. Your defense is It sux but so what?

 

[peach174]

It has nothing to do with either party.
It is about facts not opinion.
You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.

"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...

There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats. Hollywood has it's own agenda that is separate from the Democratic party. Just ask any Democrat who has angered them.

The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!

The theory went like this. With large majorities in the House and Senate, it was obvious that lots of Democratic bills would pass. But the White House would be generous and make concessions to Republicans who were willing to leap on the bandwagon. Consequently, incumbent Republicans from states Obama won (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada) would be eager to cut deals in which they backed Obama bills in exchange for key concessions. With that process under way, many Republicans who weren't even that vulnerable would be eager to cut deals as well, in search of a piece of the action. As a result, bills would pass the Senate with large 70- to 75-vote majorities, and Obama would be seen as the game-changing president who healed American politics and got things done.

McConnell's counter plan was to prevent those deals. As McConnell told Josh Green, the key to eroding Obama's popularity was denying him the sheen of bipartisanship, and that meant keep Republicans united in opposition:

"Reporters underestimate how powerful the calendar is," says Jim Manley, the former communications director for Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. "Say you want to break a filibuster. On Monday, you file cloture on a motion to proceed for a vote on Wednesday. Assuming you get it, your opponents are allowed 30 hours of debate post-cloture on the motion to proceed. That takes you to Friday, and doesn't cover amendments. The following Monday you file cloture on the bill itself, vote Wednesday, then 30 more hours of debate, and suddenly two weeks have gone by, for something that's not even controversial." All of this has slowed Senate business to a crawl.

"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."

To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.

Mitch McConnell may be the greatest strategist in contemporary politics - Vox​

​

It has nothing to do with either party.
It is about facts not opinion.
You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.

"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...

There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats. Hollywood has it's own agenda that is separate from the Democratic party. Just ask any Democrat who has angered them.

The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!

The theory went like this. With large majorities in the House and Senate, it was obvious that lots of Democratic bills would pass. But the White House would be generous and make concessions to Republicans who were willing to leap on the bandwagon. Consequently, incumbent Republicans from states Obama won (Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada) would be eager to cut deals in which they backed Obama bills in exchange for key concessions. With that process under way, many Republicans who weren't even that vulnerable would be eager to cut deals as well, in search of a piece of the action. As a result, bills would pass the Senate with large 70- to 75-vote majorities, and Obama would be seen as the game-changing president who healed American politics and got things done.

McConnell's counter plan was to prevent those deals. As McConnell told Josh Green, the key to eroding Obama's popularity was denying him the sheen of bipartisanship, and that meant keep Republicans united in opposition:

"Reporters underestimate how powerful the calendar is," says Jim Manley, the former communications director for Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. "Say you want to break a filibuster. On Monday, you file cloture on a motion to proceed for a vote on Wednesday. Assuming you get it, your opponents are allowed 30 hours of debate post-cloture on the motion to proceed. That takes you to Friday, and doesn't cover amendments. The following Monday you file cloture on the bill itself, vote Wednesday, then 30 more hours of debate, and suddenly two weeks have gone by, for something that's not even controversial." All of this has slowed Senate business to a crawl.

"We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," McConnell says. "Because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the ‘bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward."

To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked. Six years into the affair, we now take it for granted that nothing will pass on a bipartisan basis, no appointment will go through smoothly, and everything the administration tries to get done will take the form of a controversial use of executive power.

Mitch McConnell may be the greatest strategist in contemporary politics - Vox​

​

You must have missed the remarks I made about Jeb Bush and my past and present anti McCain remarks.
I also do not like Boehner or McConnell.

I never said that the main stream media did not criticize the Democrats.

I guess you do not understand how what you write is viewed by most other people.

You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.

How do you get what I said above as main stream media does not criticize the Democrats?
I said the media would be screaming their heads off about Republicans passing a huge bill with no Democrats votes.
You are the one who said that not me.

If the Democrats had had a plan to obstruct that would have happened before, but it didn't because when the GOP ran things Democrats had no Tea Party faction of their own and had no seriously popular President to contend with while losing both chambers of the Congress.

Just because some might have stomped and screamed would not have made a diffference in principle. Your defense is It sux but so what?

Your not making any sense.
Where is the Dante from yesterday, because this is not the same one here today.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can't agree with this.

.

dear, you forgot to say exactly what your disagreement is????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the greatest respect we could show for constitutional wisdom would be to let only those people who understand the constitution vote. a simple test would be fine.

 

[Dante]

"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...

There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats. Hollywood has it's own agenda that is separate from the Democratic party. Just ask any Democrat who has angered them.

The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!

​

"It has nothing to do with either party." - yet you mention one party - consistently. hmm...

There you go again, as if the main stream media is not critical of Democrats. Hollywood has it's own agenda that is separate from the Democratic party. Just ask any Democrat who has angered them.

The GOP strategy after Obama's hugely popular electoral victory in 2008, of which I did not personally favor or support in any sense or way, even down to celebrating his Swearing-in like many in the GOP and Conservative world did (read the news accounts) was obstruct! - obstruct! Deny! Deny!

​

You must have missed the remarks I made about Jeb Bush and my past and present anti McCain remarks.
I also do not like Boehner or McConnell.

I never said that the main stream media did not criticize the Democrats.

I guess you do not understand how what you write is viewed by most other people.

You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.

How do you get what I said above as main stream media does not criticize the Democrats?
I said the media would be screaming their heads off about Republicans passing a huge bill with no Democrats votes.
You are the one who said that not me.

If the Democrats had had a plan to obstruct that would have happened before, but it didn't because when the GOP ran things Democrats had no Tea Party faction of their own and had no seriously popular President to contend with while losing both chambers of the Congress.

Just because some might have stomped and screamed would not have made a difference in principle. Your defense is It sux but so what?

Your not making any sense.
Where is the Dante from yesterday, because this is not the same one here today.

When was the last time either party had a hugely popular President and control over both chambers of the Congress?

Senator McConnell publicly discussed shutting off Obama's popularity rather than allow Obama to get credit for anything bipartisan. What more do you need than the words out of the horse's mouth?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Mon Dieu! I fear my brain may not be sufficiently flexible to entertain concepts not previously encountered.

I have an opportunity to get a PhD. at no cost, and believe it would be foolish to squander such an offer. Obviously, I have to do the work and the research, but tuition and books are 100% covered.

I start the journey in February.

 

[peach174]

You must have missed the remarks I made about Jeb Bush and my past and present anti McCain remarks.
I also do not like Boehner or McConnell.

I never said that the main stream media did not criticize the Democrats.

I guess you do not understand how what you write is viewed by most other people.

You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.

How do you get what I said above as main stream media does not criticize the Democrats?
I said the media would be screaming their heads off about Republicans passing a huge bill with no Democrats votes.
You are the one who said that not me.

If the Democrats had had a plan to obstruct that would have happened before, but it didn't because when the GOP ran things Democrats had no Tea Party faction of their own and had no seriously popular President to contend with while losing both chambers of the Congress.

Just because some might have stomped and screamed would not have made a difference in principle. Your defense is It sux but so what?

Your not making any sense.
Where is the Dante from yesterday, because this is not the same one here today.

When was the last time either party had a hugely popular President and control over both chambers of the Congress?

Senator McConnell publicly discussed shutting off Obama's popularity rather than allow Obama to get credit for anything bipartisan. What more do you need than the words out of the horse's mouth?

Your not getting the double standard and hypocrisy of it.
If the tables were turned, the Dem's would be screaming and marching in the streets over a large spending bill that might have been passed by only Republican votes.

 

[peach174]

Mon Dieu! I fear my brain may not be sufficiently flexible to entertain concepts not previously encountered.

I have an opportunity to get a PhD. at no cost, and believe it would be foolish to squander such an offer. Obviously, I have to do the work and the research, but tuition and books are 100% covered.

I start the journey in February.

Congratulations!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is true and your the one thats ignorant..tho any ignorance is not laughable.

check out my gallery..and refute the founders

You need to learn that this is not a forum you can bullshit your way through.

{Word Origin
C17: from French république, from Latin rēspublica literally: the public thing, from rēs thing + publica public}

We gain our word "Republic" from the French word and concept of a representatives elected by the public. It is quite different than the word and concept of "democracy." In Latin this is {dēmocratia} which means literally "popular." You made up a silly little claim about the word, and made a fool of yourself.

 

[nodoginnafight]

More education IS needed for those who do not realize that Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your bs Pub site never gives you the date of that plebliscite, hater dupes. It was well after Hitler TOOK total control after being made Chancellor in Jan. 1933. DUH.

Wiki- Reichstag Fire Decree was in Feb 1933- Hitler used it to take control. Brainwashed functional MORONS.

Democracy created Hitler, the greatest liberal in human history next to Stalin. The question is, why did liberals spy for Stalin more than Hitler.

Unbelievable. Read something.

The question is, why did liberals spy for Stalin more than Hitler

 

[Dante]

I guess you do not understand how what you write is viewed by most other people.

You know darn good and well had the republicans passed a huge bill like that without one Democrat vote, the Democrats, Hollywood and main stream media would be screaming their heads off.

How do you get what I said above as main stream media does not criticize the Democrats?
I said the media would be screaming their heads off about Republicans passing a huge bill with no Democrats votes.
You are the one who said that not me.

If the Democrats had had a plan to obstruct that would have happened before, but it didn't because when the GOP ran things Democrats had no Tea Party faction of their own and had no seriously popular President to contend with while losing both chambers of the Congress.

Just because some might have stomped and screamed would not have made a difference in principle. Your defense is It sux but so what?

Your not making any sense.
Where is the Dante from yesterday, because this is not the same one here today.

When was the last time either party had a hugely popular President and control over both chambers of the Congress?

Senator McConnell publicly discussed shutting off Obama's popularity rather than allow Obama to get credit for anything bipartisan. What more do you need than the words out of the horse's mouth?

Your not getting the double standard and hypocrisy of it.
If the tables were turned, the Dem's would be screaming and marching in the streets over a large spending bill that might have been passed by only Republican votes.

You're not getting it. People like me don't care that it was all Democrats and would not care if it were all Republicans if it were done with the same variables -- one party refusing to back what it backed only months before in order to deny a hugely popular President anymore popularity that would extend to his/her party.

For some people it is the HOW and WHY it was passed with a strictly partisan vote that is outrageous: Democrats.

For some people it isn't the HOW and WHY it was passed with a strictly partisan vote that is outrageous. What outrages them is a partisan, mythical story that is meant to deflect from the HOW and WHY: Republicans.

It wasn't a spending bill in the way you are portraying it, so yet again you are misrepresenting and misunderstanding things to suit an ideological stance taken regardless of facts

 

[Dante]

Your bs Pub site never gives you the date of that plebliscite, hater dupes. It was well after Hitler TOOK total control after being made Chancellor in Jan. 1933. DUH.

Wiki- Reichstag Fire Decree was in Feb 1933- Hitler used it to take control. Brainwashed functional MORONS.

Democracy created Hitler, the greatest liberal in human history next to Stalin. The question is, why did liberals spy for Stalin more than Hitler.

Unbelievable. Read something.

The question is, why did liberals spy for Stalin more than Hitler

those spies weren't liberals. They were spies

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

More education IS needed for those who do not realize that Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive.

nobody said they were, but, today many are taking for granted that democracy is smart despite the evidence that people are stupid.

This is why you have liberals upset that we don't always support democratic elections, like in Egypt.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If your read what others have McConnell saying he is planning to obstruct Obama before the PPACA is even on the table -- it was about keeping a hugely popular President from getting any more popular and winning hearts and minds of Americans with anything good. This is why Republicans ended up against what they were for before.

Brilliant strategy. I admire McConnell's skills. Yet I do not think most who defend him or dislike Democrats like looking at the facts - be that what they are.

Dainty, I strongly urge you and your party to loudly proclaim your support of Fascistcare, that you promoted Fascistcare from the start, and that the further election of democrats will increase the scope of Fascistcare and programs like Fascistcare into the lives of Americans; with the same sort of impact on jobs and personal finances.

It's a winning strategy - Warren should campaign on it! "Fascistcare, now and forever!"

 

[Dante]

Uncensored2008 dcraelin

It is true and your the one thats ignorant..tho any ignorance is not laughable.

check out my gallery..and refute the founders

You need to learn that this is not a forum you can bullshit your way through.

{Word Origin
C17: from French république, from Latin rēspublica literally: the public thing, from rēs thing + publica public}

We gain our word "Republic" from the French word and concept of a representatives elected by the public. It is quite different than the word and concept of "democracy." In Latin this is {dēmocratia} which means literally "popular." You made up a silly little claim about the word, and made a fool of yourself.

"The term originates as the Latin translation of Greek word politeia. Cicero, among other Latin writers, translated politeia as res publica and it was in turn translated by Renaissance scholars as republic (or similar terms in various western European languages)" - wikipedia entry

the dead giveaway is that when the framers gave us a republic, the French were still a monarchy.

• French First Republic (1792–1804)