Both parties seem to have their share of the wealthy... it's just what they do with the money!
invest in things/people here or put it in overseas banks and etc... or try to buy elections....or...
Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
invest in things/people here or put it in overseas banks and etc... or try to buy elections....or...
Interesting that you cut and paste these articles yet never provide a source.
yes... for one we got Obama care... which the country needs.... it needs some work it's far from perfect.... but if it hadn't been for the democrats we wouldn't even have that.... although helping people who are in need so went against the republicans they did manage to get changes in the house and senate.... but I don't think that will last long... between the obstructionism and offending about every minority there is... they have run their course... hell look at what they have done in the states they have control of.... most are broke and in trouble... they just can't manage much more than the "whining"... they do that well!
I stated on here on one of these threads.... just about everything I get is on my home page... YAHOO
So which of these states are "broke", or are you just inventing facts again or conflating your opinion as facts.
Yahoo I don't think is partial... I saw 2 articles this morning... one saying about how the republicans are hurting them selves by not doing the scotus and another article going the other way... but like you and anybody else... I read the ones I like... but they pretty much have it both ways
KANSAS is a very good example of Tea Party politics.... there are more... but they are in the news everyday.... with the BS they are doing... yesterday I think they were trying to pass a law that they could impeach judges who didn't rule in favor of what they house thought was what was needed
Because I’m not a member of the Republican Party, I can’t really purport to know what’s being discussed in its inner circles of power.
But help me out here. President Barack Obama has been making chess moves since the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — keeping to what needs to be said or decided without forecasting too much, but clearly thinking several steps ahead.
Meanwhile, the Senate GOP leadership is trapped playing political tiddlywinks, figuring that if it gets enough cheap political proclamations into the cup of public discourse, it'll somehow come out ahead of the president.
Those leaders are focused on him; he’s focused on delivering value for the nation, within the confines of a political stalemate.
It’s an embarrassing mismatch — and one that could cost the GOP (though, I don’t believe, the nation) seriously down the road.
Obama’s pick for Scalia’s seat is masterful. Merrick Garland is about the least noxious liberal nominee you can imagine, from a conservative perspective. He’s thoughtful, patient, noncombative, and his opinions defy ideological classification. Sometimes, he sees the law through a liberal lens, but more often, he’s extremely resolutely moderate, sometimes even conservative. Other judges love Merrick Garland, something I remember from the five terms I spent covering the U.S. Supreme Court, just down the road from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where Garland has sat since the late 1990s.
He’s the perfect pick, in fact, for the current situation: Democratic president, Republican-controlled Senate. Obama could not go for the ideological jugular; he had to find someone both parties could agree would be suitable for the high court. Garland is far more conservative than both previous Obama nominees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, and would easily be the most conservative of the Democratic appointees.
Picking Garland is a move toward compromise, with a little bit of sacrifice — he’s already on a court that’s considered the closest to the Supremes, and he’s a guy whose record just doesn’t offer a whole lot to pick over. A revolutionary, he is not. But he'd be a win for the White House, even if incremental, if Obama could get him confirmed.
And there's the rub.
The GOP has already painted itself into a corner with a much sillier game — saying that no nominee Obama puts forth will even get a hearing. The reason is a totally made-up rule — not in the Constitution, not found in history — that suggests the president’s appointive power somehow expires in the fourth year of his administration. Republicans say the pick should belong to the next president, even though quite a few of them voted for Anthony Kennedy’s nomination in 1988 — an election year.
In other words, anyone Obama suggests, of any caliber, is unacceptable. The Senate is not opposing a nominee, as is its purview under the Constitution; the GOP is opposing the presidency, and its legitimacy.
Now already, the American public says this is nonsense. Some 55% say the Senate will be shirking its duty if it doesn’t at least hold hearings on the Garland nomination. And overall, let’s think about the optics here. Yes, the president is unpopular — but Congress is far more disliked. And here, Obama is just doing his constitutionally mandated job — sending a pick for an open high court seat. The Senate would be shirking its job by not holding hearings.
What on earth is the upside of that?
But help me out here. President Barack Obama has been making chess moves since the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — keeping to what needs to be said or decided without forecasting too much, but clearly thinking several steps ahead.
Meanwhile, the Senate GOP leadership is trapped playing political tiddlywinks, figuring that if it gets enough cheap political proclamations into the cup of public discourse, it'll somehow come out ahead of the president.
Those leaders are focused on him; he’s focused on delivering value for the nation, within the confines of a political stalemate.
It’s an embarrassing mismatch — and one that could cost the GOP (though, I don’t believe, the nation) seriously down the road.
Obama’s pick for Scalia’s seat is masterful. Merrick Garland is about the least noxious liberal nominee you can imagine, from a conservative perspective. He’s thoughtful, patient, noncombative, and his opinions defy ideological classification. Sometimes, he sees the law through a liberal lens, but more often, he’s extremely resolutely moderate, sometimes even conservative. Other judges love Merrick Garland, something I remember from the five terms I spent covering the U.S. Supreme Court, just down the road from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where Garland has sat since the late 1990s.
He’s the perfect pick, in fact, for the current situation: Democratic president, Republican-controlled Senate. Obama could not go for the ideological jugular; he had to find someone both parties could agree would be suitable for the high court. Garland is far more conservative than both previous Obama nominees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, and would easily be the most conservative of the Democratic appointees.
Picking Garland is a move toward compromise, with a little bit of sacrifice — he’s already on a court that’s considered the closest to the Supremes, and he’s a guy whose record just doesn’t offer a whole lot to pick over. A revolutionary, he is not. But he'd be a win for the White House, even if incremental, if Obama could get him confirmed.
And there's the rub.
The GOP has already painted itself into a corner with a much sillier game — saying that no nominee Obama puts forth will even get a hearing. The reason is a totally made-up rule — not in the Constitution, not found in history — that suggests the president’s appointive power somehow expires in the fourth year of his administration. Republicans say the pick should belong to the next president, even though quite a few of them voted for Anthony Kennedy’s nomination in 1988 — an election year.
In other words, anyone Obama suggests, of any caliber, is unacceptable. The Senate is not opposing a nominee, as is its purview under the Constitution; the GOP is opposing the presidency, and its legitimacy.
Now already, the American public says this is nonsense. Some 55% say the Senate will be shirking its duty if it doesn’t at least hold hearings on the Garland nomination. And overall, let’s think about the optics here. Yes, the president is unpopular — but Congress is far more disliked. And here, Obama is just doing his constitutionally mandated job — sending a pick for an open high court seat. The Senate would be shirking its job by not holding hearings.
What on earth is the upside of that?
sorry didn't get the rest of the article... here it is
The political calculations here are even more amateurish.
Think of the mansion-burning dynamic of the Republican presidential primary, and the diminishing chances that the party’s nominee faces in November, particularly if it’s Donald Trump. Do Senate GOP leaders think they’ll get a more moderate pick out of Hillary Clinton?
And it could get worse. If the Senate GOP blocks Garland, doesn’t that add momentum to the arguments that the Senate can’t do its job, and threaten the jobs of incumbent GOP senators running for re-election in blue or purple states?
The court could lurch much further leftward if Clinton could pick a nominee and have a Democratic Senate confirm. That’s fine by me — but is that really what the GOP Senate leadership wants?
There’s more. The next president will almost certainly face two more vacancies in his or her first term — Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83 and Anthony Kennedy is 79 — and if the GOP were to retain the Senate or win the election this year, that’d be another opportunity to shift the balance.
But blocking Garland would seem to diminish the chances of either holding onto the Senate or winning the presidency.
So what’s the point?
That’s where we get back to the different games being played. The GOP’s is pointless, other than to oppose a president whose legitimacy they’ve questioned from the beginning and whose every step they’ve opposed, whether it made sense or not. Remember: This was the party that abandoned its support of the commonsense individual health care mandate, itself a GOP idea, simply to oppose this president. This is a party that opposed immigration reform that its own senators had signed off on, again to thwart Obama.
Here, that’s the aim. They’re not against the nominee; they’re against the president. And if they sink the party deeper into disadvantage by refusing to confirm Merrick Garland, I guess, on some warped plane of political gamesmanship, that’s a win.
The victory laps won’t be any fun, though, if the American public punishes them as mightily as it could in November.
The political calculations here are even more amateurish.
Think of the mansion-burning dynamic of the Republican presidential primary, and the diminishing chances that the party’s nominee faces in November, particularly if it’s Donald Trump. Do Senate GOP leaders think they’ll get a more moderate pick out of Hillary Clinton?
And it could get worse. If the Senate GOP blocks Garland, doesn’t that add momentum to the arguments that the Senate can’t do its job, and threaten the jobs of incumbent GOP senators running for re-election in blue or purple states?
The court could lurch much further leftward if Clinton could pick a nominee and have a Democratic Senate confirm. That’s fine by me — but is that really what the GOP Senate leadership wants?
There’s more. The next president will almost certainly face two more vacancies in his or her first term — Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83 and Anthony Kennedy is 79 — and if the GOP were to retain the Senate or win the election this year, that’d be another opportunity to shift the balance.
But blocking Garland would seem to diminish the chances of either holding onto the Senate or winning the presidency.
So what’s the point?
That’s where we get back to the different games being played. The GOP’s is pointless, other than to oppose a president whose legitimacy they’ve questioned from the beginning and whose every step they’ve opposed, whether it made sense or not. Remember: This was the party that abandoned its support of the commonsense individual health care mandate, itself a GOP idea, simply to oppose this president. This is a party that opposed immigration reform that its own senators had signed off on, again to thwart Obama.
Here, that’s the aim. They’re not against the nominee; they’re against the president. And if they sink the party deeper into disadvantage by refusing to confirm Merrick Garland, I guess, on some warped plane of political gamesmanship, that’s a win.
The victory laps won’t be any fun, though, if the American public punishes them as mightily as it could in November.
In a way the USA is a one party country. And that party is the elitist party. It has two factions, the democrats and the republicans. They differ widely in rhetoric but little in any truly meaningful way. They both have the interests of the elite and themselves in mind and not the average american. They are both corrupt and will chip away at americans standards of living, rights and freedoms.
no argument there.... for what seems.... forever... we have to chose between the lesser of the evils.... no body in their right mind would want to run and willingly submit themselves to the humiliation and harassment and belittlement that is politics now.... when did we allow it to become 'dirty" and paid for!
we allowed this mess to go on and now we are ****** to live with the consequences.... seems to be no end in sight and no way of stopping it...Kasich has run a nice clean campaign.... but the other 2 are already plotting to get him out.... the dems have done a ....decent job of keeping it clean... but....I guess it comes down to the devil you know as opposed to the one you don't.... and that's to bad.... I blame Norquist and Rove here lately... but I am partial... it was going on before them... just it has got out of control now
GOP rolls out baffling double standard for Obama’s Court nominee
Just about every senator in both parties issued written statements yesterday responding to President Obama nominating Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, but Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-Pa.) stood out as unique.
Facing a credible re-election challenge this year, Toomey has already joined his party’s blockade against any high court nominee this year, but in his press release, the Pennsylvania Republican managed to blaze his own trail: “Should Merrick Garland be nominated again by the next president, I would be happy to carefully consider his nomination.”
Hmm. If some other president nominates Garland, Toomey might support the jurist’s confirmation, but not this president. Garland may deserve careful consideration in January 2017, but in March 2016, according to Toomey, it’s out of the question.
On the campaign trail in Pennsylvania yesterday, Republican presidential hopeful John Kasich adopted a related line. The Ohio governor made the case that other presidents can put forward Supreme Court nominees in the early months of their final year in office, but this president should not. The Washington Post reported:
“I think a president can pick a nominee in the last year, but the fact is, you have somebody who’s created this terrible polarization,” said Kasich. “You cannot stiff the legislative body that you have to work with. You just can’t do that. And he’s had no relationship with them. He got Obamacare – not one [Republican] vote. Then he did executive orders, which he shouldn’t have done. It’s a total breakdown down there.”
According to a video of the comments, Kasich added that a Supreme Court nomination means “more fighting, more fighting,” which is something the White House should avoid.
None of this makes any sense at all.
Some of the details are just plainly wrong. Kasich’s proof of the president “stiffing” Congress is health care reform – which was approved by Congress. The GOP governor complained about Obama’s executive orders, but the truth is this president has issued fewer executive orders than any modern two-term president.
But even if we put these odd factual misstatements aside, Kasich’s core argument is that President Obama shouldn’t try to fill a Supreme Court vacancy because we’re living in an era of political polarization. If routine governing leads to “more fighting,” the argument goes, than Obama – whom Kasich inexplicably blames for the toxic political air – should sit on his hands and do nothing.
Other, less polarizing presidents have the authority to make Supreme Court nominations, but this president – who has the audacity to pursue his agenda despite Republican opposition – must steer clear of anything that might be perceived as controversial. By Kasich’s reasoning, the only steps Obama should take are the ones his radicalized Republican critics approve of.
This is a genuinely bizarre approach to contemporary politics, but just as importantly, it’s an argument that appears even more foolish given the GOP’s consistent praise of Merrick Garland over the course of many years.
Republicans may stick to the line that there should be an anti-Obama double-standard, but there’s no reason anyone should take it seriously.
Just about every senator in both parties issued written statements yesterday responding to President Obama nominating Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, but Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-Pa.) stood out as unique.
Facing a credible re-election challenge this year, Toomey has already joined his party’s blockade against any high court nominee this year, but in his press release, the Pennsylvania Republican managed to blaze his own trail: “Should Merrick Garland be nominated again by the next president, I would be happy to carefully consider his nomination.”
Hmm. If some other president nominates Garland, Toomey might support the jurist’s confirmation, but not this president. Garland may deserve careful consideration in January 2017, but in March 2016, according to Toomey, it’s out of the question.
On the campaign trail in Pennsylvania yesterday, Republican presidential hopeful John Kasich adopted a related line. The Ohio governor made the case that other presidents can put forward Supreme Court nominees in the early months of their final year in office, but this president should not. The Washington Post reported:
“I think a president can pick a nominee in the last year, but the fact is, you have somebody who’s created this terrible polarization,” said Kasich. “You cannot stiff the legislative body that you have to work with. You just can’t do that. And he’s had no relationship with them. He got Obamacare – not one [Republican] vote. Then he did executive orders, which he shouldn’t have done. It’s a total breakdown down there.”
According to a video of the comments, Kasich added that a Supreme Court nomination means “more fighting, more fighting,” which is something the White House should avoid.
None of this makes any sense at all.
Some of the details are just plainly wrong. Kasich’s proof of the president “stiffing” Congress is health care reform – which was approved by Congress. The GOP governor complained about Obama’s executive orders, but the truth is this president has issued fewer executive orders than any modern two-term president.
But even if we put these odd factual misstatements aside, Kasich’s core argument is that President Obama shouldn’t try to fill a Supreme Court vacancy because we’re living in an era of political polarization. If routine governing leads to “more fighting,” the argument goes, than Obama – whom Kasich inexplicably blames for the toxic political air – should sit on his hands and do nothing.
Other, less polarizing presidents have the authority to make Supreme Court nominations, but this president – who has the audacity to pursue his agenda despite Republican opposition – must steer clear of anything that might be perceived as controversial. By Kasich’s reasoning, the only steps Obama should take are the ones his radicalized Republican critics approve of.
This is a genuinely bizarre approach to contemporary politics, but just as importantly, it’s an argument that appears even more foolish given the GOP’s consistent praise of Merrick Garland over the course of many years.
Republicans may stick to the line that there should be an anti-Obama double-standard, but there’s no reason anyone should take it seriously.
Republicans are simple proof that "if you repeat a lie often and loud enough, it becomes fact". The polarization started the day before Obama took his first oath of office, when conspiring Republicans met to plan his "failure" as the new president, and hopes of regaining the POTUS in 2012. Like everything else that they've tried to do, they failed at that.
They're the ones that met, a second time, the day of Obama's second inauguration to plan the shutdown of the federal government courtesy of the Heritage Action for America (Heritage Foundation), recruiting yours truly, Ted Cruz, and calling for an end of ALL judicial and executive branch confirmations for Obama.
So, let them hold the line on the President's Supreme Court nominee, it only adds more fuel to a growing population of voters that have had enough of these pea brain thinkers. Once Hillary takes the reigns, maybe she'll reward them with a really far-left nominee and they'll be wishing they'd have accepted Obama's choice.
This party simply refuses to take ANY direct responsibility for their current situation. Absolutely NONE.
They're the ones that met, a second time, the day of Obama's second inauguration to plan the shutdown of the federal government courtesy of the Heritage Action for America (Heritage Foundation), recruiting yours truly, Ted Cruz, and calling for an end of ALL judicial and executive branch confirmations for Obama.
So, let them hold the line on the President's Supreme Court nominee, it only adds more fuel to a growing population of voters that have had enough of these pea brain thinkers. Once Hillary takes the reigns, maybe she'll reward them with a really far-left nominee and they'll be wishing they'd have accepted Obama's choice.
This party simply refuses to take ANY direct responsibility for their current situation. Absolutely NONE.
The Senate republicans are just following years of Senate precedent....following the "Biden Rule" and the "Schumer Rule". Both Biden and Schumer argued that Bush 41 and Bush 43 shouldn't have any supreme court nominees considered in the last year of their respective terms. Schumer took it even further. He stated 18 months before the end of Bush 43's term that he shouldn't get any more supreme court nominations approved.
http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146
http://www.delawareonline.com/story...omments-haunt-him-two-decades-later/81865194/
The old saying about chickens definitely applies here. It is usually abbreviated and loses some meaning today. Originally the phrase was: "Curses are like young chickens, they always come home to roost"
If the Jews of the world had half the power they are accused of holding they would be ruling the planet.
Valid point
The Second Amendment wasn't put in place for hunters, it was put there to deal with people like Assad
In retrospect a very valuable insight into the Clintons
I shudder to think what the nation debt would be if President Obama had been given free reign. PPACA isn't doing as great as you would would have us believe. Medical price increases are back to where they were pre-PPACA. Currently 3% of cancer patients file bankruptcy. Even with subsidies the only health care many can afford have huge deductibles. I am curious how the national debt is going to get paid down.
