• 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!

Democrats Sure Gave Pres. Trump a Lot of Power

SenorXm/Sirius said:
So it wasn't 'his'? Even though HE signed it, it's the Dems in Congress fault?

According to Cons and Republicans Bush gets no blame for signing the Patriot Act.
Click to expand...

Well, it was pass well beyond the veto-proof majority needed so...I'm not sure why this is hard for you to understand.

But Clinton get's 100% of the blame for signing the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, even though those 3 names are all Republican senators. Again, I guess the 'buck' only stops on the desk of a Dem POTUS. The so called party 'self responsibility' the GOP? They pass the buck, they blame others.

Not only are you apologists funny, but you're damn predictable too.
Click to expand...

Well, that act passed through the Senate with a 54-44 vote, which is not veto-proof so...I think the problem here is that you don't understand the basic fundamentals of out government.
 
Fishking said:
Well, it was pass well beyond the veto-proof majority needed so...I'm not sure why this is hard for you to understand.
Click to expand...

I do understand rabid partisanship when I see it though.

You expect people to believe Bush only signed the PA because he knew that if he vetoed it that Congress would have overrode his veto anyway? That is the ultimate excuse to put the blame for the PA on anyone besides Bush.

When he signed the signed the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act in 2006 I'm sure in your world that was someone else's fault too.

Have a nice day.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
I do understand rabid partisanship when I see it though.

You expect people to believe Bush only signed the PA because he knew that if he vetoed it that Congress would have overrode his veto anyway? That is the ultimate excuse to put the blame for the PA on anyone besides Bush.
Click to expand...

You realize that Republicans hat the majority in the House and Senate at that time, right? That the 1 dissenting vote in the Senate was a D and the 66 in the House were almost all Ds? There's plenty of blame to go around, and Bush would have signed it anyways. The entire country was begging for such a thing at the time. Everyone gets blame. The only thing I'm pointing out is you being what you're accusing me of, a partisan, by saying it's Bush's PA as if he wrote it and helped shove it through Congress or something.

Then you bring up a different bill, that was signed by Clinton, that wasn't veto-proof. Which means the bill needed Clinton's approval to be made into law and that's what happened. Clinton approved of the bill and so he is factually part of it.

Pathetic.
 
Fishking said:
There's plenty of blame to go around, and Bush would have signed it anyways. The entire country was begging for such a thing at the time. Everyone gets blame.
Click to expand...

If you said any of this a few posts ago you could have saved me a whole bunch of key strokes.

Have a nice day.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
If you said any of this a few posts ago you could have saved me a whole bunch of key strokes.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

If you had said the Patriot Act was pass overwhelmingly in a bi-partisan manner, with high public approval, I wouldn't have had to provide a civics lesson.
 
Last edited:
Fishking said:
What does Bush have to do with it? The Patriot Act was pass through the Senate 98-1 and the House 357-66. Bush couldn't have done jack-**** about it. That's way beyond veto-proof levels.
Click to expand...

Don't spoil their fun, they're on a roll.
 
Fishking said:
You linked something that said they had 60, which is a super-majority, after Specter switched parties.
Click to expand...
I don't believe so. When Specter switched, it put the at 59, since Franken hadn't been sworn in yet. It also showed that a couple of the Democrat Senators weren't healthy enough to vote consistently.

Furthermore, I'm not disputing that Democrats had, at one point, 60 votes. I'm disputing the part where you claim it was "years". It was definitely not years and if you reviewed either of the sources I posted (which I don't believe you did if you are claiming Specter put them at 60), you would see that.

Please review the links and address your inaccurate statement. Thank you.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I don't believe so. When Specter switched, it put the at 59, since Franken hadn't been sworn in yet. It also showed that a couple of the Democrat Senators weren't healthy enough to vote consistently.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Franken got sworn in and the other two could have been wheeled in to vote, on something big enough, if they had any self-respect as life-long public servants that had a duty to fulfill by holding office.

Furthermore, I'm not disputing that Democrats had, at one point, 60 votes. I'm disputing the part where you claim it was "years". It was definitely not years and if you reviewed either of the sources I posted (which I don't believe you did if you are claiming Specter put them at 60), you would see that.

Please review the links and address your inaccurate statement. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Looks like it didn't turn out to be for the full two years so it wasn't years. However, they had all the control needed to line things up to fully implement all kinds of things, once they got it. The reality is, they were overly ineffective for what they had going for them.
 
Slyfox696 said:
So you admit you when you said "for years", you really had no idea what you were talking about?

I'm a big fan of facts. You were wrong. At least you're willing to acknowledge you weren't correct. I can appreciate that.
Click to expand...

Oh? what am I wrong about? Did obama repeal the patriot act when I wasn't looking? hmmmmmm, enlighten me mr. Slyfox. I'm waiting :)
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
I see so you are saying Obama is NOT a good president because he didn't 'end it'. 1st you blamed the Dems in Congress, now you are blaming Obama for not ended. So you are still giving Bush a pass even though the PA was his and was started on his watch? Again, funny how the 'buck' only stops on the desk of the POTUS when that President is a Dem. When the Prez is a Republican and he screws up then it's still the Dems fault. Then the buck is passed. LOL

Typical partisan BS.
Click to expand...
Just because I criticize Obama doesn't mean I like bush. That's called a fallacy and you just committed it.

If anything, I'm not really criticizing Obama or the dems. I knew they wouldn't do anything about the patriot act or foreign intervention. I criticize that people like you ignore the facts. The democrats had every opportunity to do something about the patriot, and for that, there is no blaming Bush for.
 
jimbo said:
The presumption that conservatives liked the Patriot Act and a DHS that refused to secure the homeland is a fallacy that persists among liberals and establishment Republicans alike. But rank and file conservatives are the first to do something about it. It's called Trump.
Click to expand...

I don't think Trump will actually do anything about it. Unfortunately, for the dems, there is little else the office of president can do to concentrate power. So, if anything, nothing Trump can do will be unprecedented. You would think liberals and anti-trump conservatives like myself could actually agree on something here but alas, the democrats are completely blinded and incapable of recognizing the faults of their own leader and where he failed to roll back the powers of the presidency. It's ironic really. They blame republicans for making Trump into a cult, when they actually are a cult.
 
Fishking said:
Looks like it didn't turn out to be for the full two years so it wasn't years.
Click to expand...
Which is the point I was making. From what I can tell, they essentially had four or five months of control.

However, they had all the control needed to line things up to fully implement all kinds of things, once they got it. The reality is, they were overly ineffective for what they had going for them.
Click to expand...
Meh, it's Congress. There's only so many things which can get through in a few months time. And considering the control Republicans had in many states, the ability to exert "total control" wasn't as extensive as some like to claim (see Obamacare's Medicaid expansion as evidence of that).

While the Republicans don't have filibuster proof majority in Senate, I'd argue that, when considering the balance of power at the state level, they probably have as much, if not more, control of government than Democrats in those four or five months of 09.

It'd certainly make for an interesting discussion.
DarkWizard12 said:
Stop making excuses for idiots, thank you.
Click to expand...
I haven't made any excuses, I've insisted on facts. Don't blame me because you said something was provably false in order to push your agenda.

If it helps, I agree the scope of the Patriot Act needs to be scaled back. But I doubt either party will.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom