Right - but you chose to define awe as being 'reverential' versus thethe's 'awestruck'. I think that's the distinction trying to be made here. Nobody is saying that Trump shouldn't respect the office.Originally Posted by 50PoundHead
As for Obama, I think a more experienced politician/leader wouldn't be watching his signature legislation being picked off right now. He was too much of a reserved idealist and tried to build coalitions with people who had no interest in sustaining them. His loss.
jpx7 (01-23-2017)
Interesting.
Cajun had mentioned he wasn't a fan of Republicans obstructing everything Obama did.
Forever Fredi
jpx7 (01-23-2017)
Wait, didn't the Repubs say it was Obama who wouldn't work with them (not the other way around)?
In the context of my original post, I was referring to BO's first term. He added some salt to his seasoning during in the later years, but by then he didn't have a Congress to work with.
Last edited by Hawk; 01-23-2017 at 01:30 PM.
So of course the nuclear story was refuted. Yet another example of fake news pedaled by the left.
Then he should have used the right word. People get all up on 57, so maybe we should respect him a little more as well.
Are you talking about when healthcare was passed or what is happening now? Of course Obama wanted to build coalitions. That's how one gets paradigmatic change. In the end, I think he has moved the ball forward on health care and as arrogant as he can be, I get the impression he's fine with that. Whatever Trump does will be built on the ACA. Massive portions may be repealed, but if the ACA never passes, this issue probably isn't even on the radar and there would be no progress.
jpx7 (01-23-2017)
So do you think he refused to work with Congress (first) or did they tell him from day one to go eff himself they weren't going to work with him?
I think once he put healthcare on top of the docket, the Republicans decided to do what they did to Clinton. Healthcare is a political minefield and they ventured it would drag him down and it did. That obviously spilled over into everything else. Let's see how Republicans vote on the debt ceiling with Trump in the White House.
A LOT of the Repubs around here who pick on Steak Sauce did the same exact thing he's doing for the last 8 years, they just don't see it that way. After all when some people whine, bitch, moan, complain, stonewall, spin, and try to tear down everyone one party does, they're just whining, bitching, moaning, complaining, stonewalling, spinning and tearing down stuff, when others do the same damn exact things they're just standing up for what they believe is right.
Healthcare. My point was that given the political climate when Obama was elected he didn't necessarily need to build coalitions to get major legislation pushed through. There was a great deal of time wasted trying to bring more people onboard at the outset, which I chalk up to the rookie status of POTUS and his administration.
I always hoped ACA was a step toward universal healthcare, and I believe many Democrats did as well, so in that respect, whatever Trump does is absolutely damaging to the process. So, progress ... yes ... but real change? No.
jpx7 (01-23-2017)
True, but to be fair while the ACA wasn't a bad idea, it just wasn't done correctly or completely IMO. The Repubs were never going to go along with it because they special interests that own their souls (if they have any) wouldn't let them go along with it. For any reasonable people, Dem or Repub who rightly pointed out the flaws in the ACA were going to be lumped in with the complainers no matter why they did it. Had the ACA have been done a little differently/better it would have been harder for the Repubs or just other detractors to get any traction by blasting it. I definitely believe that had it been another corporate welfare payday for Exxon-Mobil, Verizon, GE, the GMOs, etc., "Lyin' Ted" would have been reading aloud from the script of a late night Cinemax flick on the floor of the Senate (complete with lots of heavy breathing) rather than from Dr. Seuss. Just my opinion though.
Why would he have refused to work with a Congress where his party held majorities in both houses?
OK, let's use (and you are right to this point) from 2010 when the Repubs regained control of Congress as our starting point.
I honestly don't see how the two situations compare.
You spun an innocuous comment kind of clearly talking about how Trump might not be intimidated by the office into him somehow fundamentally disrespecting the powers we've given him.
We paw at 57 because he still uses hashtags.
I've contended all along that the only reason those Republicans were elected to begin with was because they campaigned explicitly to obstruct Obama.
then we are in agreement. Do you remember your 1830s history? After Andrew Jackson left the public scene what was left to hold the Whigs together?
I get where you are going with this, and it's an interesting comparison ... but I'm choosing not to look at things too cynically on this Monday afternoon.
But why does it have to be cynical (other than the fact that I asked it)? I mean, among the very few things I actually like (or think I may like) about the president is that he won't always toe the party line, though I have to admit I'm more than a little troubled by some of the folks he's put into positions of power so far and how he seems to be letting the Repub led Congress run amok. Assuming he really is a maverick and a rebel and will go with the Repubs on certain issues and totally against them on others, why would it be such a bad thing if his leadership led to the dismantling of both our putrid political parties?
That's correct
On Monday, surrounded by other white men, President Donald Trump signed an anti-abortion executive order that has far-reaching consequences for women’s reproductive health access worldwide.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
