• 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!

Obama to voters after Republican sweep of Congress: 'I hear you'......

I think he heard what people said with their votes - he just doesn't care.

The GOP would do best by making Obama's veto pens run out of ink. Let him veto hundreds of bills, regardless if the veto's can be overturned or not.

Or they could send him responsible bills that actually help our country, but that would require congress to be populated by adults. So your hopes will most likely be the rule of the next two years.
 
Or they could send him responsible bills that actually help our country, but that would require congress to be populated by adults. So your hopes will most likely be the rule of the next two years.

Are "responsible bills" only those with which you would agree as to content?
 
Are "responsible bills" only those with which you would agree as to content?

I'm referring to bills that were not specifically crafted with the intent of forcing Obama to veto them, including (and this is the going to be the first of many, I guarantee you) the repeal of the PPACA.
 
I'm referring to bills that were not specifically crafted with the intent of forcing Obama to veto them, including (and this is the going to be the first of many, I guarantee you) the repeal of the PPACA.

My guess is the first would be the Keystone Pipeline, but I see you didn't answer the question......
 
My guess is the first would be the Keystone Pipeline, but I see you didn't answer the question......

As I understand it, there were certain environmental concerns regarding the construction of the pipeline, and the rush to approve it forced Obama to squash it if a comprehensive report of the potential risks couldn't be made first. But Obama did say that he wasn't adverse to a pipeline in the future, so if environmental concerns are addressed there's no reason why he couldn't sign.

Which is precisely why the environmental concerns won't be addressed.
 
As I understand it, there were certain environmental concerns regarding the construction of the pipeline, and the rush to approve it forced Obama to squash it if a comprehensive report of the potential risks couldn't be made first. But Obama did say that he wasn't adverse to a pipeline in the future, so if environmental concerns are addressed there's no reason why he couldn't sign.

Which is precisely why the environmental concerns won't be addressed.

The State Department has already stated there are negligible environmental risks...
 
The State Department has already stated there are negligible environmental risks...

And if that's true then I imagine Obama would sign it. So that just leaves the question: what will be needlessly slipped into the bill that would force Obama to veto it?
 
And if that's true then I imagine Obama would sign it. So that just leaves the question: what will be needlessly slipped into the bill that would force Obama to veto it?

That report was released two years ago and the President could approve its construction without congressional action...
 
What says I?




I say this.



We have acted. First, we acted to remove the democrats, and voted in a bunch of republicans, and a republican president. No change, or worse than before. So we acted again, and voted to oust those republicans for more democrats. No change, or worse than before. And we now act again. To flip the house again.


Will there be a change, and if there is, will it just be worse than before?


How many times will it take before we see the futility of it?

Well, republicans? How many times are you willing to risk it? Democrats? How many times? How much is your skin worth? How many more chances do you think you're going to get?

Its not like we have a real choice, just two evils to choose between.
 
Who would have thought? President Obama has fundamentally changed America again!
 
Couldn't Obama let the bills sit on his desk, or in his trash can, as the case may be, and not do anything with them like Reid did?

Is he required to approve or veto a bill on his desk?

I would guess he could let them sit there - would that be a better option than simply vetoing them?
 
Or they could send him responsible bills that actually help our country, but that would require congress to be populated by adults. So your hopes will most likely be the rule of the next two years.

So now that Democrats got spanked, everyone is supposed to be interested in helping the country? :lamo
 
I stand corrected. I was thinking Senate.

These senior moments are starting to come more frequently these days.

But, my point remains. People are very unhappy with republicans, (as well as with democrats, IMO) and the voters, by majority, do not want the GOP ideology treading on them. So, what do they do? Elect more republicans. That makes real good sense. Not.

So rather than adjusting your logic to fit reality, you just insult reality because it doesn't suit your predisposed views?

Here's a different way to think about it.

People generally don't like the Republicans. They also don't like the Democrats. They also don't like Obama and his policies.

Republicans by and large ran on a campaign message of stopping Obama policies, turning back many of the actions of the past few years, and actually pushing through some of the things that have been blocked (like Keystone).

Voters don't want the GOP ideology "treading on them", but they also don't want the Democratic ideology continuing to tread on them or the impede things they want. So they elected Republicans in a substantial wave across this country to stop what has been happening.

That makes a ton of sense. Even if you don't like the Republicans, there's a far greater chance that they'll stop what's been going on then the Democrats, seeing how it's a Democrat President and was an at least half democratic controlled congress that has been doing those things up to this point.
 
Welcome to politics. I think the question of will the Republicans now decide to work with Obama or not. McConnell has given up on repeal of Obamacare, which is probably a good start.

This may be the stupidest political move I've seen in some time if he goes through with that.

The one primary issues that pretty much EVERY republican that won in the Senate campaigned on was OPPOSING Obamacare and trying to undo it.

And then on day one of winning you completely take that off the table?

That's beyond retarded, that's suicidal from a political stance. But what can you expect from the Turtle. A-yup...

Strangely enough, Cruz has the right idea on this. Push for full repeal, send the bill up, have Obama veto it, and let it die back in the Senate. Then you can look at the base that just elected you in with near record numbers and go "Look, we gave it an honest shot like we promised in our campaigning. He won't repeal it so now lets try to fix it".

Then you come back and you do piece mail legislation that you can get a few Democrats to support so you can label it "bipartisan". Things like repealing the medical device tax, removing of the IPAB, or even possibly looking at the individual mandate. If you actually get 2 to 6 or more Democrats on board with any of those votes...and Obama STILL vetos...then it becomes a bigger political hinderance on him and Democrats rather than on the Republicans.

But you can't just full on take it entirely off the table. That's ridiculous. It's like a GM convincing a football team to hire him because he'll do a good job rebuilding, and then as soon as he's hired you trade away every one of your draft picks to trade for a 32 year old Quarterback.
 
Good morning Zyphlin.

It is my opinion that, and it is validated by the surveys conducted during the exit polls, that by and large, the majority of Americans, approve of such issues as gay marriage, regulating campaign donations, legal pot, equal pay, etc. The issues the republican types typically disapprove of. But the #1 concern of the exiting voters was the economy. And the exit polls indicate that the voters trust the republicans more on the issue of the economy than they do the democrats. (Even though I cannot understand that as it makes no sense at all to me as my economics do, and have always done, better during a democratic white house.)

I think if the GOP were wiser, they would do away with their historical stances on social issues and get more in line with mainstream America. To do this would give them sweeping victories, in my opinion. Sure, they might lose the support of the religious right and the other folks in their base that feel they have the right to dictate to others but I think those numbers would be more than made up for by the gaining of the support of the centrists , independents and moderates. Keep in mind, only 25% of the population identifies themself as republican. Only 31% identify themselves as democrats. There is a HUGE percentage of independents out there just ripe for the picking if they played their cards wisely. Again, just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say it is just the Republicans, I mean, generally people have had it with incumbents and Congressional approval rating is in the teens if I recall correctly.

Sadly, the incumbent argument doesn't really hold water. It may be a little factor, but not more so than the party factor. You can tell that by just looking at the actual totals.

Republicans had more incumbants in the house than Democrats, but only had 3 lose. Democrats had 10. That's roughly 1.3% of all Republican incumbants losing compared to 5% of all Democrat incumbents. If it was simply an anti-incumbent sentiment we should've seen at least a similar, if not greater, loss for Republicans since they had even more incumbents htan Democrats.

In the Senate, Republicans had 12 incumbents running and all 12 of them won. That means 0% of Republican incumbents lost. Meanwhile, Democrats went into the election season running 17 incumbents running and lost 4 thus far with one additional loss likely, one possible, and one unlikely. Taking only the likely loss into account, that's looking at 29% of Democratic Incumbents losing senate seats.

So Republicans lost 1.3% of incumbents running in the house and 0% of incumbents running in the Senate.

Meanwhile, Democrats lost 5% of incumbents running in the house and likely 29% of incumbents running in the senate.

That's not an indication of a pure anti-incumbent sentiment. That's, at best, an indication of an anti-democratic incumbent sentiment. Republican incumbents, by and large, did pretty well.
 
I would guess he could let them sit there - would that be a better option than simply vetoing them?

Obama has a history of not making decisions. When he was a Senator he didn't vote up or down on things.

If he doesn't make a decision he doesn't get anybody mad.
 
So now that Democrats got spanked, everyone is supposed to be interested in helping the country? :lamo

Not at all. I'm completely in favor of the world's most powerful country using its resources to carry out vindictive escapades internally in the hope of achieving symbolic gain down the road. It tells our enemies on the international stage, "If this is what we do to ourselves, just think what we're going to do to you."
 
Strangely enough, Cruz has the right idea on this. Push for full repeal, send the bill up, have Obama veto it, and let it die back in the Senate. Then you can look at the base that just elected you in with near record numbers and go "Look, we gave it an honest shot like we promised in our campaigning. He won't repeal it so now lets try to fix it".

Then you come back and you do piece mail legislation that you can get a few Democrats to support so you can label it "bipartisan". Things like repealing the medical device tax, removing of the IPAB, or even possibly looking at the individual mandate. If you actually get 2 to 6 or more Democrats on board with any of those votes...and Obama STILL vetos...then it becomes a bigger political hinderance on him and Democrats rather than on the Republicans.

What if the Republicans were to skip the first part and move directly on to the part where they make the fixes that are necessary and might actually help the country?

Or do I need to shut up because adults are talking now?
 
What if the Republicans were to skip the first part and move directly on to the part where they make the fixes that are necessary and might actually help the country?

Or do I need to shut up because adults are talking now?

Well one, whether or not you feel it will "help the country" isn't some absolute truth. For the vast majority of Republicans in congress, those already there and those that just got elected (in large part based on campaigning for a repeal), and their constituents the belief is that a full repeal IS something that actually would help the country. While it's unlikely the president will allow such a thing to pass his desk the feeling is that you should at least try. Essentially, there's no HARM in trying and the only way you know for certain that it won't work is if you try and he vetos.

When you have the Senate of the United States wasting time passing resolutions on things that no one has campaign on, like the Washington Redskins needing to change their name, without many liberals having a coniption fit about time being wasted then I think it's not unreasonable to spend the little time that it'll take to pass a repeal bill using reconcilliation and to get it vetoed.

If you foolishly think that politicians aren't going to play politics that's on you. Imagining that will be the case isn't being an "adult", it's more akin to being a child filled with imagination and naivity. Yes, both sides are still going to act like politicians after this election, both sides are still likely to take action that's going to be aimed at pleasing the people who voted them into office, and both sides are going to try and manuever a bit to prepare for 2016.

If they spend 6 months battling for full repeal, instead of taking a bit of time to do that and immedietley moving on, then I think you'd have a point. I don't see that likely being the case, and until it proves to be the case I'll base my thoughts on the more likely occurence...that they try in relatively short order, they fail, and they move on to the other means. I don't see anything significantly wrong with that, in part because I do believe that those elected into office have a duty to actually stand up and try to do what they campaigned for.
 
Obama has a history of not making decisions. When he was a Senator he didn't vote up or down on things.

If he doesn't make a decision he doesn't get anybody mad.

Fair enough.
 
Not at all. I'm completely in favor of the world's most powerful country using its resources to carry out vindictive escapades internally in the hope of achieving symbolic gain down the road. It tells our enemies on the international stage, "If this is what we do to ourselves, just think what we're going to do to you."

Good - the less that's done the better IMO.
 
This may be the stupidest political move I've seen in some time if he goes through with that.

The one primary issues that pretty much EVERY republican that won in the Senate campaigned on was OPPOSING Obamacare and trying to undo it.

And then on day one of winning you completely take that off the table?

That's beyond retarded, that's suicidal from a political stance. But what can you expect from the Turtle. A-yup...

Strangely enough, Cruz has the right idea on this. Push for full repeal, send the bill up, have Obama veto it, and let it die back in the Senate. Then you can look at the base that just elected you in with near record numbers and go "Look, we gave it an honest shot like we promised in our campaigning. He won't repeal it so now lets try to fix it".

Then you come back and you do piece mail legislation that you can get a few Democrats to support so you can label it "bipartisan". Things like repealing the medical device tax, removing of the IPAB, or even possibly looking at the individual mandate. If you actually get 2 to 6 or more Democrats on board with any of those votes...and Obama STILL vetos...then it becomes a bigger political hinderance on him and Democrats rather than on the Republicans.

But you can't just full on take it entirely off the table. That's ridiculous. It's like a GM convincing a football team to hire him because he'll do a good job rebuilding, and then as soon as he's hired you trade away every one of your draft picks to trade for a 32 year old Quarterback.

Perhaps, but the more time they spend passing repeals that will just get vetoed, the less time they have for other things like a budget that could pass, or that they have enough leverage on to force Obama's hand.
 
If the current senate had enough free time on their hands to spend passing resolutions about the name of the Football Team in Washington that not a single member in the chamber campaigned on, then I think they can afford to spend a bit of time on passing something that every single republican that won earlier this week specifically made a part of their campaigns message.

Considering they have all the political cover they need to pass the repeal under reconcilliation, given how the bill came into being in the first place, it shouldn't take a significant amount of time to get a repeal passed in the House and Senate, get the veto, and move on.
 
Back
Top Bottom