• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How many agree with my sentiment?

Mycroft said:
Or, at the very lease, he would probably ignore them...as he's done at times already. He also has a habit of ignoring the courts.
Click to expand...


doublefacepalm.jpg

90
 
megaprogman said:
actually i agree. looking at the Clinton years vs the years post 2000 when a single party was in charge both right and left, the years of gridlock were better.
Click to expand...

I think gridlock back in the 90's had a very different tone about it...compromise on issues still seemed possible, or maybe because I was pretty young back then my thoughts are clouding my judgment. It may be just me, but I don't really get that feeling anymore. One party wants something, the other party is opposed and proposes something totally different. Instead of meeting halfway or compromise for everyone's benefit, the first party proposes something that will be opposed even moreso by their counterparts. No one gives in and this bullheaded, stubborn way of thinking has clearly started to trickle down and be accepted amongst the American populace in everyday life. It's black or it's white. It's good or it's evil. It's either all positive or all negative. It's 100% frustrating.

johnny_rebson said:
If independent voters are convinced that Obama is a lock to win this November, they are more likely to vote GOP in House and Senate races.
Click to expand...

Those that show up, yes, I would imagine would do what you're talking about. Would enough GOP voters show up to outvote those on the other side doing the exact same thing, though? If Obama has a commanding lead heading in to election day, I don't think so. Congressional elections in presidential election years almost always favor the party that wins the top office because of straight ticket voting; people not usually voting in midterm elections (a lot of Democrats in the 21st century but both parties have 'em) vote along party lines straight down their ballot due to lack of knowledge and interest in the lower offices.

Dayton3 said:
I disagree. I think divided govt. is way overrated. For one thing it makes it far, far more difficult to load a single party with the bulk of the blame or credit.
Click to expand...

How is that a bad thing? If they both suck they should both get blame. Being 'less wrong' doesn't make Americans feel any better about either party anymore.
 
23477_386704216632_286726696632_3826026_4345706_n.jpg
 
Kal'Stang said:
Overall I don't care which person gets elected President so long as the majority in the House and/or Senate are of an opposite party.
Click to expand...

that would be fine as long as they are trying to govern the country side by side with the president. Curtailing him when necessary but in a mutual symbiotic way to benefit the US. Not like it usually is, a prolongued war of attrition where one tries to destroy the other or make running the country virtually impossible.
 
Republic Now! said:
As a rule of thumb it seems to be better, though then again the 06-08 years were pretty bad.
Click to expand...

In general, divided government is good. We can debate for hours if Clinton actually balanced the budget or any of that, but it was closer than anything we'd seen in many years before, and closer than we've been since. He never could have done that without a Republican Congress, and they never could have done it without him. (If you ask me that should be Gingrich's biggest selling point, but apparently he didn't want to say that things were good under a Democratic President.)

06-08 was different because of a few reasons, not least of which was personalities. It's also because while the Congress flipped to Republican two years into Clinton's time, and he had to learn pretty quickly to work with them. It took a couple of years. 2006 was after Bush had a friendly Congress for 6 years, and by the time they would have learned, it was over anyway. 2010 could have had a similar effect if the Senate had turned over as well (but didn't).
 
Kal'Stang said:
Overall I don't care which person gets elected President so long as the majority in the House and/or Senate are of an opposite party.
Click to expand...
I don't agree at all with you. Today SCOTUS is 5-4 in favor of the right wing, if Romney should win the election that would make the situation even worse than it is today. It wasn't meant to be this way but, the Supreme Court has the most power of the three branches.
 
Boo Radley said:
I have actually argued for the merits of divided government, especially if they are forced to work together in someway. The lost art of compromise needs to make a comeback.
Click to expand...

Except, of course, compromise is a sign of weakness with the new Republican Party. Compromisers get defeated in primaries.
 
rocket88 said:
In general, divided government is good. We can debate for hours if Clinton actually balanced the budget or any of that, but it was closer than anything we'd seen in many years before, and closer than we've been since. He never could have done that without a Republican Congress, and they never could have done it without him. (If you ask me that should be Gingrich's biggest selling point, but apparently he didn't want to say that things were good under a Democratic President.)
Click to expand...
In his campaigning for the Iowa Caucuses he took pretty much full credit for "balancing" the budget. To the point that, if you weren't there, you weren't even sure who the President was.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Overall I don't care which person gets elected President so long as the majority in the House and/or Senate are of an opposite party.
Click to expand...


If you had asked me this question five years ago, I would have agreed enthusiastically.

But we’ve had several years of President Obama’s Radical Transformation Agenda, Armed, at least initially with not only a Democrat House and Senate, a largely leftist Supreme Court, but a most importantly with will aid of an a biased main stream media.

When you add to that the power of the Race Card Bully Pulpit; Obama has successfully “Transformed” America out of the frying pan of Dubya, straight into the hell-fire of Ethnic National Socialism.

Well, the last thing you want when finding yourself in a fire, is paralysis.

To deliberately seek in-action is just a form of suicide. I have come to believe that Obama’s hatred of America and its “Colonial & Racial Sins” is sufficient, that he would probably be quite happy with that outcome.

Unhappy, dismayed and disgusted I may be, but Suicidal I am NOT!

No, we don’t want Gridlock; Not yet.

If a few years, after allot of the most detrimental actions taken by this administration have been repealed, overturned, rejected and dismantled, perhaps…

If a few years, after actions have been take to make America the BEST country to build a trans-national corporation's new factory, laboratory, farm, fishery or mine, perhaps...

If a few years, when we've had a chance to re-establish the RULE of LAW, and reset the precedent that ALL Americans are Equal before and under the protection of the Law, Yes, then it will be time for divided Government.

For now, the Democrats have to Go!
 
Last edited:
Kurmugeon said:
If you had asked me this question five years ago, I would have agreed enthusiastically.

But we’ve had several years of President Obama’s Radical Transformation Agenda, Armed, at least initially with not only a Democrat House and Senate, a largely leftist Supreme Court, but a most importantly with will aid of an a biased main stream media.
Click to expand...

A largely leftist Supreme Court after Bush appointed Roberts and Alito? You have an interesting definition of leftist. Bush replaced Conservative justices with Conservative justices and Obama has replaced Liberals with Liberals. It's largely the same Court -- 4 Conservatives, 4 Liberals and 1 Moderate. Now I'd like to see more moderates appointed in the future, but that won't happen in the current political climate where extremist factions on both sides won't allow anybody that doesn't agree with their narrow world-view

When you add to that the power of the Race Card Bully Pulpit; Obama has successfully “Transformed” America out of the frying pan of Dubya, straight into the hell-fire of Ethnic National Socialism.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but the Nazi's weren't left wing. Thank you for bringing this thread into accordance with Godwin's Law.


If a few years, after actions have been take to make America the BEST country to build a trans-national corporation's new factory, laboratory, farm, fishery or mine, perhaps...
Click to expand...

Sure lower everybody's salary to the level of Malaysia. That sounds like a recipe for a good economy -- nobody has anything! Good idea, Comrade!

If a few years, when we've had a chance to re-establish the RULE of LAW, and reset the precedent that ALL Americans are Equal before and under the protection of the Law, Yes, then it will be time for divided Government.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize Obama's managed to change all of the laws in America in just 4 years. Maybe he is the Messiah if he has that kind of power.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Overall I don't care which person gets elected President so long as the majority in the House and/or Senate are of an opposite party.
Click to expand...

We've already had a taste of what the Republican party can do in 8 years. We don't really need a repeat.

As for Romney, this guy is so out of touch with regular folks, how could anyone think that he could represent the middle-class?
 
Last edited:
I would like to see a return to the numbers of the FDR New Deal for Democrats. That is the only way to save the system because the right wing party of the GOP will never compromise on taxes. And taxes must be raised - for ALL Americans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom