Santorum Comes From Behind in Iowa

[reprise85]

this is so depressing

[MyOneAndOnly]

Don't forget also that the republicans WILL take control of the Senate and maintain control of the House in November. There simply is no way that Democrats are going to keep control of both houses.

so, IF obama wins reelection, not a single damn reform of any real kind is going to go through the Congress for at LEAST 4 more years. The phoney "budget crisis" will become a month to month issue for Obama's entire second term. And the Crisis in appointments to federal courts and agencies will become worse (since republicans refuse to allow obama to appoint anybody to anything).

[reprise85]

so what you're saying is we're fucked

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

only 5% of Iowans voted in the GOP primary. think about that for a minute. 122,000 overwhelmingly white, conservative, christian, rural people got to decide who the top couple of GOP primary campaigners will be for the rest of the nation (which is made up of 300,000,000 racially diverse, mostly urban/suburban citizens. So by the time New York, California, etc. get to vote in primaries, most of the republican candidates will be out of the race.


Perry and Romney's financial backers spent $164 per voter! That got Perry ziltch and all Romney got out of it was the same percentage of voter that he got 4 years ago in Iowa (when Walnuts McCain won).

what a fucking stupid spectacle. all narrated by a conservative mainstream media that supports and promotes the fiction of democracy in Iowa and New Hampshire.


the entire electoral system, from the primaries to the Electoral College is a giant god damn fucking joke. The system is rigged to pick status quo conservative candidates in both parties.


The republican primary is over. Romney will be the candidate for the General election. The next half of a year is nothing but a big show to make all the plebes think there's nobody behind the curtain.

Yes, yes, the system is rigged to choose incredibly conservative candidates like Mitt Romney

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

Don't forget also that the republicans WILL take control of the Senate and maintain control of the House in November. There simply is no way that Democrats are going to keep control of both houses.

so, IF obama wins reelection, not a single damn reform of any real kind is going to go through the Congress for at LEAST 4 more years. The phoney "budget crisis" will become a month to month issue for Obama's entire second term. And the Crisis in appointments to federal courts and agencies will become worse (since republicans refuse to allow obama to appoint anybody to anything).

you mean the made-up departments obama keeps creating to "regulate" everything and then he just appoints people in disregard of congress

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

Don't forget also that the republicans WILL take control of the Senate and maintain control of the House in November. There simply is no way that Democrats are going to keep control of both houses.

so, IF obama wins reelection, not a single damn reform of any real kind is going to go through the Congress for at LEAST 4 more years. The phoney "budget crisis" will become a month to month issue for Obama's entire second term. And the Crisis in appointments to federal courts and agencies will become worse (since republicans refuse to allow obama to appoint anybody to anything).

Quite frankly, I would love gridlock.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Quite frankly, I would love gridlock.

The last times we had any real, sustained gridlock were the mid-90s - 2000 and the 1980s.

I seem to remember better economies and less ridiculous laws going into effect back then

[sppunk]

The difference is today's gridlock would feature two sides who have absolutely zero desire to actually get anything that needs to be done accomplished.

The two sides would rather fuck the country's economy or standing than compromise and "show weakness" to the other side.

It's fucking stupid.

[Nimrod's Son]

isn't that what they've done during the GOP Congress/Bush and Dem Congress/Obama anyway?

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by sppunk

The difference is today's gridlock would feature two sides who have absolutely zero desire to actually get anything that needs to be done accomplished.

The two sides would rather fuck the country's economy or standing than compromise and "show weakness" to the other side.

It's fucking stupid.

are you out of your mind

democrats, as always, have compromised every single fucking step of the way. even when they really, really shouldn't have. this is a complete distortion of the current political climate.

[sppunk]

Well currently the GOP is by far the party without compromising, but I'd guess if the tables were flipped right now it'd be about the same.

The GOP is far worse as a party than the Dems right for sure, though.

[sppunk]

Obama just actually spoke about this bullshit:

But when Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them. I’ve got an obligation to act on behalf of the American people. And I’m not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people that we were elected to serve. Not with so much at stake, not at this make-or-break moment for middle-class Americans. We’re not going to let that happen.

[Future Boy]

This stand is just pathetic as usual. Am I the only who thinks Obama would love a repub controlled congress to work with? I mean fuck, if his hands were tied and guvernin waz hard with a dem congress imagine how little control he'll have to stop anything. Unity pony at last.

[Eulogy]

if he had said that about something other than relatively unimportant appointments it would maybe be encouraging.

[Eulogy]

er, i guess i shouldn't say unimportant. but you know what i mean.

[Future Boy]

anyone hailing this as a new obama or some brave stance is a moron.

[Order 66]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

Don't forget also that the republicans WILL take control of the Senate and maintain control of the House in November. There simply is no way that Democrats are going to keep control of both houses.

so, IF obama wins reelection, not a single damn reform of any real kind is going to go through the Congress for at LEAST 4 more years. The phoney "budget crisis" will become a month to month issue for Obama's entire second term. And the Crisis in appointments to federal courts and agencies will become worse (since republicans refuse to allow obama to appoint anybody to anything).

mcconnell admitted every decision they make in congress is motivated by the singular goal of making obama a one-termer. they're putting everything on the table

so if they fail that, they really won't have anywhere else to go, and it'd probably be politically unviable to go that route another four years without risking their majority (since an obama re-election would mean the "do-nothing congress" narrative worked).

i'm not saying its all going to be sunshine afterwards and effective bills will churn out like water from a faucet, but they won't have much more incentive to gridlock the process like the past 3 years

[Order 66]

oh and about the rage over recess appointments, bush made 171 of them. i don't remember this kind of outrage like there is with obama's 32

[redbreegull]

how easily we forget

[Future Boy]

Serious question, were any of those made while the senate was having these whatever they're called and bush basically said you're not in session and did it?

honestly, havent looked into the arguments on either side to any great extent.

[Order 66]

yeah, same with every modern president. clinton and reagan had alot more than obama too iirc

[sppunk]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

anyone hailing this as a new obama or some brave stance is a moron.

He's in full-on campaign mode now so he'll talk like he has backbones again.

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Order 66

yeah, same with every modern president. clinton and reagan had alot more than obama too iirc

It seems the sticking point is that it was in pro forma session, from what I've read Bush didnt do it, but his legal team said he could.

Of course the source is a thread at democraticunderground, but the monkey typing it was defending obama so I'll go with it.

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by sppunk

He's in full-on campaign mode now so he'll talk like he has backbones again.

Time to bust out the window dressing for morons. Did you hear he doesnt take lobbyist cash! What a guy.

[Order 66]

i don't know about the precedent set by way of appointing during a pro forma session. but they straight up admitted they're gumming up the process for the sake of it so i don't see what else obama is supposed to do with the backlog. i was reading an interview with one of the gop chairs about a pending appointment a year ago and he said "well, i like the appointee, i'm sure she's right for the job. but if i block her i'll get more attention that way" it was just mindblowing

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Yes, yes, the system is rigged to choose incredibly conservative candidates like Mitt Romney

status quo conservative



I'm sure in your fucked up mind, though, a guy who's pro war, anti reproductive rights and anti gay rights is somehow NOT a conservative.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by Order 66

i don't know about the precedent set by way of appointing during a pro forma session. but they straight up admitted they're gumming up the process for the sake of it so i don't see what else obama is supposed to do with the backlog. i was reading an interview with one of the gop chairs about a pending appointment a year ago and he said "well, i like the appointee, i'm sure she's right for the job. but if i block her i'll get more attention that way" it was just mindblowing

they care more about getting their base voters and donors frothing at the mouth than administering government. But that's part of conservative ideology now; they don't really believe in effective government.

how can people who profess to hate the idea of government, people who say government is inherently evil, EVER provide anything but ineffective government.

horrible human beings

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by sppunk

Obama just actually spoke about this bullshit:

sweet, so he also appointed himself dictator

"If Congress doesn't agree with me, I'll just enact whatever the hell I feel like"

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

Serious question, were any of those made while the senate was having these whatever they're called and bush basically said you're not in session and did it?

honestly, havent looked into the arguments on either side to any great extent.

no, the dems didn't keep a session going, they were in full-on recess

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

status quo conservative



I'm sure in your fucked up mind, though, a guy who's pro war, anti reproductive rights and anti gay rights is somehow NOT a conservative.

are you just listening to what he's saying now or do you really believe he's changed his mind on everything