Democrats stiff Joe Manchin of the goodies they promised him for voting for their 'Inflation Reduction Act'

[Doc7505]

State Legislatures voting in Federal Senators was a "Check and Balance" against losing the Republic. It further strengthened the Central Government and more than that created a corrupted elitist controlled chamber of government.

That was all changed under the Wilson administration.

U.S. Senate: Landmark Legislation: The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution

Landmark Legislation: Seventeenth Amendment

www.senate.gov

**********​

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators

En Español Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures. The first proposal to amend the Constitution to elect senators by popular vote was...

www.archives.gov

 

[Dante Reawakened]

What? There isn't a politician who has ever been that has not broken promises.

YOU'RE CONFUSED AS TO WHAT PROMISES ARE.

GHWB Taxes. One says they will not raise taxes. Then later on they're confronted with what will happen if they do not rise taxes. Would you prefer they keep a promise made outside of reality as it unfolds?

Hillary was once asked if she told the truth. She replied she always tries to. She was castigated by most for telling a truth (we can all only mostly try).

 

[Dante Reawakened]

That was all changed under the Wilson administration.

U.S. Senate: Landmark Legislation: The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution

Landmark Legislation: Seventeenth Amendment

www.senate.gov

**********​

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators

En Español Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures. The first proposal to amend the Constitution to elect senators by popular vote was...

www.archives.gov

beware those who use "central government"

/the former colonists wanted divided government

the former colonists also demanded the extra-legal constitution have a mechanism called 'amendments'

 

[Independentthinker]

YOU'RE CONFUSED AS TO WHAT PROMISES ARE.

GHWB Taxes. One says they will not raise taxes. Then later on they're confronted with what will happen if they do not rise taxes. Would you prefer they keep a promise made outside of reality as it unfolds?

Hillary was once asked if she told the truth. She replied she always tries to. She was castigated by most for telling a truth (we can all only mostly try).

LOL. So you're saying that politicians don't break promises? Really?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

LOL. So you're saying that politicians don't break promises? Really?

Promises are made and broken. It is the how and why. Then there are goals

your world view here is so black and white, it is a warped vision

 

[Independentthinker]

Promises are made and broken. It is the how and why. Then there are goals

your world view here is so black and white, it is a warped vision

I see what you are saying now. You have one set of rules for Republicans and a different set of rules for Democrats.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

I see what you are saying now. You have one set of rules for Republicans and a different set of rules for Democrats.

Stop projecting.

Principles. Core principles don't change depending on a side I'd prefer or take. Then again there are some (maybe you?), who have no core principles. What they have is discontent, fear, loathing, anger, frustration in place of principles

 

[marvin martian]

He was just a cheap slut they said pretty words to, fucked and dumped.

Exactly how the DemoKKKrats treat all their supporters.

 

[ding]

Principles. Core principles don't change depending on a side I'd prefer or take.

You mean like when Obama said he was against gay marriage before he was elected and said he was for gay marriage after he was elected?

 

[ding]

Then again there are some (maybe you?), who have no core principles. What they have is discontent, fear, loathing, anger, frustration in place of principles

Which one do you think Obama had in place of core principles?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Which one do you think Obama had in place of core principles?

Obama?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

You mean like when Obama said he was against gay marriage before he was elected and said he was for gay marriage after he was elected?

you're confused

 

[ding]

you're confused

How so?

 

[marvin martian]

Obama?

Yes, he was president from 2008-2016. How old are you?

 

[Indeependent]

YOU'RE CONFUSED AS TO WHAT PROMISES ARE.

GHWB Taxes. One says they will not raise taxes. Then later on they're confronted with what will happen if they do not rise taxes. Would you prefer they keep a promise made outside of reality as it unfolds?

Hillary was once asked if she told the truth. She replied she always tries to. She was castigated by most for telling a truth (we can all only mostly try).

Promises are worded very carefully...
No new taxes = Raise existing taxes.
No raising taxes = Create new taxes.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

You mean like when Obama said he was against gay marriage before he was elected and said he was for gay marriage after he was elected?

homework: See Obama's 20-Year Evolution on LGBT Rights

 

[ding]

homework: See Obama's 20-Year Evolution on LGBT Rights

Oh, I know what he said. I'm just surprised you don't see what he did. Is honesty not a core principle of yours because it seems like it's flexible for positions you do take which is kind of the opposite of what you claimed earlier.

I think Trump trying to circumvent the constitution to remain in power was reprehensible. It's no different than when Obama circumvented the constitution by allowing the EPA to label CO2 a pollutant so they could use the clean air act to regulate it for climate change. The only difference is that Obama actually succeeded in circumventing the constitution which may make it more reprehensible.

I only tell you this to show you what honesty looks like because you apparently don't believe Obama's evolving beliefs were dishonest which I'm not buying for a second.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Oh, I know what he said. I'm just surprised you don't see what he did. Is honesty not a core principle of yours because it seems like it's flexible for positions you do take which is kind of the opposite of what you claimed earlier.

I think Trump trying to circumvent the constitution to remain in power was reprehensible. It's no different than when Obama circumvented the constitution by allowing the EPA to label CO2 a pollutant so they could use the clean air act to regulate it for climate change. The only difference is that Obama actually succeeded in circumventing the constitution which may make it more reprehensible.

I only tell you this to show you what honesty looks like because you apparently don't believe Obama's evolving beliefs were dishonest which I'm not buying for a second.

In 2008 - I did not vote for Senator Obama - twice

In 2012 I voted for Obama -- twice

Your claim is "when Obama said he was against gay marriage before he was elected and said he was for gay marriage after he was elected?" -- it's either sadly ignorant or purposefully disingenuous

'Marriage' vs 'Civil Unions' vs 'Gay Civil Rights'

When Howard Dean was Governor [ in 2000, after the Vermont Supreme Court, in Baker v. State, ruled that the state's marriage laws unconstitutionally excluded same-sex couples and ordered that the state legislature either allow gays and lesbians to marry or create a parallel status. Facing calls to amend the state constitution to prohibit either option, Dean chose to support the latter one, and signed the nation's first civil unions legislation into law ] - was Dean against gay marriage?

Massachusetts CJ. Margaret Marshall in 2003 [ Marshall wrote the ground-breaking decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that declared that the Massachusetts constitution does not permit the state to deny citizens the right to same-sex marriage ] - lots of gay advocates first misunderstood the ruling, mistakenly believing that the CJ was opining the door to the Vermont solution for gay 'marriages' They were wrong. But were they anti gay marriage because they were calling for civil,unions and not gay marriage?

You insinuate that Obama lied and changed his position after he was elected, as if that would help him. Help him how?

Many people got suck on defintion(s) of Marriage and brought religious arguments to a basically civil status. One can get married in a house of worship, but for tax and other purposes of government benefits, a civil marriage license is needed. People who were arguing against marriages for gays, were not all on the same page. Some were anti gay. Some were stuck on the religious nod to marriages. Others still were stuck on a marriage having to be for the purposes of producing children . I could go on...

Your premises lack real world arguments and resolutions of the issue. You paint a black and white picture, lacking obvious gray areas. You ignore many people's opinions and even beliefs evolve over time.

Then there is your obvious dislike and maybe hatred of Obama

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Oh, I know what he said. I'm just surprised you don't see what he did. Is honesty not a core principle of yours because it seems like it's flexible for positions you do take which is kind of the opposite of what you claimed earlier.

I think Trump trying to circumvent the constitution to remain in power was reprehensible. It's no different than when Obama circumvented the constitution by allowing the EPA to label CO2 a pollutant so they could use the clean air act to regulate it for climate change. The only difference is that Obama actually succeeded in circumventing the constitution which may make it more reprehensible.

I only tell you this to show you what honesty looks like because you apparently don't believe Obama's evolving beliefs were dishonest which I'm not buying for a second.

You have no clue what a core principle is. Of this I am sure. And you have no idea what mine are

 

[ding]

Your claim is "when Obama said he was against gay marriage before he was elected and said he was for gay marriage after he was elected?" -- it's either sadly ignorant or purposefully disingenuous

'Marriage' vs 'Civil Unions' vs 'Gay Civil Rights'

When Howard Dean was Governor [ in 2000, after the Vermont Supreme Court, in Baker v. State, ruled that the state's marriage laws unconstitutionally excluded same-sex couples and ordered that the state legislature either allow gays and lesbians to marry or create a parallel status. Facing calls to amend the state constitution to prohibit either option, Dean chose to support the latter one, and signed the nation's first civil unions legislation into law ] - was Dean against gay marriage?

Massachusetts CJ. Margaret Marshall in 2003 [ Marshall wrote the ground-breaking decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that declared that the Massachusetts constitution does not permit the state to deny citizens the right to same-sex marriage ] - lots of gay advocates first misunderstood the ruling, mistakenly believing that the CJ was opining the door to the Vermont solution for gay 'marriages' They were wrong. But were they anti gay marriage because they were calling for civil,unions and not gay marriage?

You insinuate that Obama lied and changed his position after he was elected, as if that would help him. Help him how?

Many people got suck on defintion(s) of Marriage and brought religious arguments to a basically civil status. One can get married in a house of worship, but for tax and other purposes of government benefits, a civil marriage license is needed. People who were arguing against marriages for gays, were not all on the same page. Some were anti gay. Some were stuck on the religious nod to marriages. Others still were stuck on a marriage having to be for the purposes of producing children . I could go on...

Your premises lack real world arguments and resolutions of the issue. You paint a black and white picture, lacking obvious gray areas. You ignore many people's opinions and even beliefs evolve over time.

Then there is your obvious dislike and maybe hatred of Obama

tl/dr

And I don't need your spin. I was there at the time. You're being a hypocrite. You are just as bad as the ones you oppose. Let that marinate.