• 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!

Will Obama live up to his victory speech?

Will Obama live up to his victory speech?


  • Total voters
    53

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
While I watched Obama's speech last night, I certainly felt happy, reassured and excited for the future. He is an exceptional orator who makes those who stand with him truly feel that they are a meaningful part of something important. At the same time, in the back of mind I could not help but wonder if he's going to live up to the vision he painted for the country last night. He said things that he hasn't said in this entire election season and, in some ways, in the past four years.

I wonder if he now feels he get more done now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election or if it will be another four years of Obama not going as far as should have gone. In my opinion, he didn't push hard enough on Healthcare, he was too cautious about same-sex marriage, he significantly overreached by supporting warrant-less surveillance, his education policies weren't ideal and he didn't do enough to increase employment. (There's more, but I'll stop there.)

So, my question, mostly to those who voted for Obama:
Do you think Obama will live up to nation he painted in his victory speech and throughout the campaign?


Video of speech: President Barack Obama - 2012 Re-election Acceptance Speech - YouTube
Transcript of speech: Transcript: Obama’s Victory Speech - Washington Wire - WSJ
 
Barack Obama is the most divisive figure in America. At the end of the day, we're in exactly the same place we were two weeks ago. Republican/Tea Party controlled House, Democratic Senate, and Obama.

Same input, same output. More gridlock in Washington. More bickering, and nothing getting done for 2 years until the next senatorial races.
 
Time for Obama to kick back, break out some good booze, curl up in front of the TV and watch the world go by for the next 4 yrs. Why shouldn't he...that's what all lame duck politicians do.
 
Barack Obama is the most divisive figure in America. At the end of the day, we're in exactly the same place we were two weeks ago. Republican/Tea Party controlled House, Democratic Senate, and Obama.

Same input, same output. More gridlock in Washington. More bickering, and nothing getting done for 2 years until the next senatorial races.

It doesn't matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you’re willing to try. - Barack Obama after his re-election on November 6, 2012

That's not divisive.
 
The mood among many, many conservatives is downright anger. Anger.

Especially southern conservatives.

You thought Bush was divisive, this guy is your George W Bush x10.

It doesn't matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you’re willing to try. - Barack Obama after his re-election on November 6, 2012

That's not divisive.
 
It doesn't matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you’re willing to try. - Barack Obama after his re-election on November 6, 2012

That's not divisive.

He said similar things last time, and look what happened.
 
While I watched Obama's speech last night, I certainly felt happy, reassured and excited for the future. He is an exceptional orator who makes those who stand with him truly feel that they are a meaningful part of something important. At the same time, in the back of mind I could not help but wonder if he's going to live up to the vision he painted for the country last night. He said things that he hasn't said in this entire election season and, in some ways, in the past four years.

I wonder if he now feels he get more done now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election or if it will be another four years of Obama not going as far as should have gone. In my opinion, he didn't push hard enough on Healthcare, he was too cautious about same-sex marriage, he significantly overreached by supporting warrant-less surveillance, his education policies weren't ideal and he didn't do enough to increase employment. (There's more, but I'll stop there.)

So, my question, mostly to those who voted for Obama:
Do you think Obama will live up to nation he painted in his victory speech and throughout the campaign?


Video of speech: President Barack Obama - 2012 Re-election Acceptance Speech - YouTube
Transcript of speech: Transcript: Obama’s Victory Speech - Washington Wire - WSJ

To be honest, I listened to about two minutes of his speech and turned it off because I knew it would be the usual, empty rhetoric he's flung at us so many times before.

As far as him achieving any of the grandiose and lofty goals he proclaimed...I sincerely hope he fails.
 
While I watched Obama's speech last night, I certainly felt happy, reassured and excited for the future. He is an exceptional orator who makes those who stand with him truly feel that they are a meaningful part of something important. At the same time, in the back of mind I could not help but wonder if he's going to live up to the vision he painted for the country last night. He said things that he hasn't said in this entire election season and, in some ways, in the past four years.

I wonder if he now feels he get more done now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election or if it will be another four years of Obama not going as far as should have gone. In my opinion, he didn't push hard enough on Healthcare, he was too cautious about same-sex marriage, he significantly overreached by supporting warrant-less surveillance, his education policies weren't ideal and he didn't do enough to increase employment. (There's more, but I'll stop there.)

So, my question, mostly to those who voted for Obama:
Do you think Obama will live up to nation he painted in his victory speech and throughout the campaign?


Video of speech: President Barack Obama - 2012 Re-election Acceptance Speech - YouTube
Transcript of speech: Transcript: Obama’s Victory Speech - Washington Wire - WSJ

By "not going far enough" it seems you're suggesting he did not push far enough down the Democratic/Liberal mindset on those issues.

I'm not quite sure if that's wise or being a good steward of the country. You had a 2% popular vote victory with even lower turnout then the year before...hardly a mandate of "we are gungho behind your ideology 100%, push push push". You have the American people revote in a split Congress, allowing the Republicans to keep the house that money originates from.

It seems to me that the little parts of his speech talking about reaching across the aisle is what needs to be true in the best interest of the country.

On the Democratic side, the Obama administration and the Democrats in the Senate need to look at the Republican party in the house TODAY. NOT looking at Republicans 20 years ago, in another time and an entirely different complex, and figure out what it is they say they want and desire. They need to show good faith attempts to find bipartisan solutions, NOT simply offer up a few token scraps as a means of "bipartisanship". And I say "Good Faith" attempts at BIPARTISANSHIP for a reason...actual attempts undertaken with the express purpose and intent of gaining REPUBLICAN votes and support to build a consensus on something, not taking moderating steps to shore up one's own party members who won't even agree with you and attempting to present that as "reaching across the aisle". Winning over the more moderate people in your own PARTY is not "bi-partisanship" as there's no second party there to make the "bi" appropriate. There's no aisle you're reaching across. That's you just dealing with being so far to the left that you have to reach to just cover your own side of the aisle.

On the flip side, Republicans in the House need to see that the American People ALSO want them to compromise as well. They voted the President back in narrowly, and added additional people in the senate largely at the expense of Abortion views. They need to approach honest, good faith attempts at bi-partisanship in a similar honest way. They need to look at the President's plans and instead of saying "how can we stop it" say "is there any way we can accomplish the goal, but in a method that is more in line with how we view things but is able to be agreed upon by both sides".

The American People are pissed off at our government....and yet has elected it back into power in basically the same way. It seem's the message to me is clear....we either want Gridlock when both sides are trying to push their "Do it primarily in our ideological way of get bent", or we want both sides to find a way to actually successfully compromise.

SUCCESSFULLY compromise. That's the key. Compromise is not "You win a little and lose a little, I win a little and lose a little". That's dumb compromise, and it's not going to work for any side. True compromise is looking at a situation, determining the goals and desires both sides have with said situation, and then trying to find the common ground that is a "win" for both in terms of their goals and going with that.

If Obama decides to continue to try and push as left as his own party can allow him to go on most domestic things then the Republicans in the house are likely to push back in a similar fashion, and we're going to see next to nothing done. And frankly...based on the election, I think that's a result more welcomed by the American people than Obama OR the Republicans succeeding at going as left or as right as they are feasibly able to go.
 
Barack Obama is the most divisive figure in America. At the end of the day, we're in exactly the same place we were two weeks ago. Republican/Tea Party controlled House, Democratic Senate, and Obama.

Same input, same output. More gridlock in Washington. More bickering, and nothing getting done for 2 years until the next senatorial races.

You sound like a victim of black magic..
 
I have no idea what that means.

If your Congressman is lazy and too obstinate to work with the administration to pull the ox out of the ditch... raise hell.

You say, "Obama is divisive".. You are a man.. you don't have to be "divided"..
 
I'm not divided at all. As a conservative, I'm 100 percent against Obama and everything he stands for. Obama is a socialist. I want my congressman to dig in and fight Obama every step of the way, because this was a great country, and we don't need "hope and change."

If your Congressman is lazy and too obstinate to work with the administration to pull the ox out of the ditch... raise hell.

You say, "Obama is divisive".. You are a man.. you don't have to be "divided"..
 
so much of this depends on whether or not congress will work with him. if there's room for negotiation, he'll have more success. if congress holds the line against everything he wants to do, less will get done.

part of it is on him to establish a better dialogue with congress. however, during his first term, the majority in the house operated under a mission statement of blocking everything he wanted to do and making him a one term president. it's very difficult to deliver with a congress like that.

my guess is that the pressure is higher to work together now, so more will get done. everything he promised, though? probably not.
 
Barack Obama is the most divisive figure in America. At the end of the day, we're in exactly the same place we were two weeks ago. Republican/Tea Party controlled House, Democratic Senate, and Obama.

Same input, same output. More gridlock in Washington. More bickering, and nothing getting done for 2 years until the next senatorial races.


No we aren't. We now know that most Americans don't agree with the old, rich, religious, white guy GOP platform. We also know that women get to maintain ownership of their vaginas for another 4 years. We know that the Tea Party drains life out of the GOP. We now know that unless the GOP begins to champion mainstream positions it's going to continue to suck hind tit. America is changing and the GOP is out of touch. The election proves it.
 
Liberals say the same thing every time they win. And every time, the Republican base just gets more energized, more fired up, and we give you a George W Bush for your trouble.

No we aren't. We now know that most Americans don't agree with the old, rich, religious, white guy GOP platform. We also know that women get to maintain ownership of their vaginas for another 4 years. We know that the Tea Party drains life out of the GOP. We now know that unless the GOP begins to champion mainstream positions it's going to continue to suck hind tit. America is changing and the GOP is out of touch. The election proves it.
 
By "not going far enough" it seems you're suggesting he did not push far enough down the Democratic/Liberal mindset on those issues.

I'm not quite sure if that's wise or being a good steward of the country. You had a 2% popular vote victory with even lower turnout then the year before...hardly a mandate of "we are gungho behind your ideology 100%, push push push". You have the American people revote in a split Congress, allowing the Republicans to keep the house that money originates from.

It seems to me that the little parts of his speech talking about reaching across the aisle is what needs to be true in the best interest of the country.

On the Democratic side, the Obama administration and the Democrats in the Senate need to look at the Republican party in the house TODAY. NOT looking at Republicans 20 years ago, in another time and an entirely different complex, and figure out what it is they say they want and desire. They need to show good faith attempts to find bipartisan solutions, NOT simply offer up a few token scraps as a means of "bipartisanship". And I say "Good Faith" attempts at BIPARTISANSHIP for a reason...actual attempts undertaken with the express purpose and intent of gaining REPUBLICAN votes and support to build a consensus on something, not taking moderating steps to shore up one's own party members who won't even agree with you and attempting to present that as "reaching across the aisle". Winning over the more moderate people in your own PARTY is not "bi-partisanship" as there's no second party there to make the "bi" appropriate. There's no aisle you're reaching across. That's you just dealing with being so far to the left that you have to reach to just cover your own side of the aisle.

On the flip side, Republicans in the House need to see that the American People ALSO want them to compromise as well. They voted the President back in narrowly, and added additional people in the senate largely at the expense of Abortion views. They need to approach honest, good faith attempts at bi-partisanship in a similar honest way. They need to look at the President's plans and instead of saying "how can we stop it" say "is there any way we can accomplish the goal, but in a method that is more in line with how we view things but is able to be agreed upon by both sides".

The American People are pissed off at our government....and yet has elected it back into power in basically the same way. It seem's the message to me is clear....we either want Gridlock when both sides are trying to push their "Do it primarily in our ideological way of get bent", or we want both sides to find a way to actually successfully compromise.

SUCCESSFULLY compromise. That's the key. Compromise is not "You win a little and lose a little, I win a little and lose a little". That's dumb compromise, and it's not going to work for any side. True compromise is looking at a situation, determining the goals and desires both sides have with said situation, and then trying to find the common ground that is a "win" for both in terms of their goals and going with that.

If Obama decides to continue to try and push as left as his own party can allow him to go on most domestic things then the Republicans in the house are likely to push back in a similar fashion, and we're going to see next to nothing done. And frankly...based on the election, I think that's a result more welcomed by the American people than Obama OR the Republicans succeeding at going as left or as right as they are feasibly able to go.

What form would such compromise take?
 
Liberals say the same thing every time they win. And every time, the Republican base just gets more energized, more fired up, and we give you a George W Bush for your trouble.

Two things:

Thing one - I am an Independent.

Thing two - I voted for Gary Johnson.

Thing three - You need to calm the **** down.
 
Liberals say the same thing every time they win. And every time, the Republican base just gets more energized, more fired up, and we give you a George W Bush for your trouble.

I thought Scalia gave us the Shrub? Yes, he did.
 
It doesn't matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you’re willing to try. - Barack Obama after his re-election on November 6, 2012

That's not divisive.


Yep I always literally laugh when people say he is the most divisive when the exact opposite is true and its what got him elected, twice now.

Not at you TPD but just in general.


I most certainly dont agree with all the stuff Obama and this admin has done by any means but he is not "divisive" to the objective, bipartisan and moderate populations.

Now he is divisive to those that were already divisive themselves and partisan themselves, they have a big influence and are the biggest and loudest crybabies lol. But guess what, in general the majority of america doesnt want those people, we are done with nut job loud mouth extremists.

I hope this mantra carries on and it wakes some people up.

AGain you dont have to fully agree with obama, i certainly dont but the objective/honesty/moderate/bi-partisan train is loading up right now! Maybe you dont want to be in Obamas car and thats fine, pick another car more YOUR style thats what makes us america, but you better damn well get your ass on the train or you are going to be left behind.

IMO if you think he is "the most divisive president ever" which is a sound bite i hear here and there, the problem is you, you need to look in the mirror because the train is passing you by my friend, you are too far left or too far right and im guessing america is done with that obnoxious, ignorant, selfish, blow hard, inane, nonsensical bull****.

watch your feet bitches! Cause here comes the train, try to fix/help AMERICA and stop worrying about you own personally little locker of nonsense.

ALL-ABOARD!!
 
What form would such compromise take?

Let me try to take an example that I think SHOULD be reasonable if both sides are able to give a bit and compromse.

Immigration. Specifically, looking at children brought here illegally.

Republicans don't want to simply give them free citizenship, free government services, or "reward" them with citizenship for doing something that is viewed as a privilege (college) or simply common sense necessary for survival (having a job). They want to see people here illegally go to the back of the line in terms of getting legal citizenship rights.

Democrats don't want children brought here by their parents to essentially suffer the sins of the parents and wish to give them a method in which they can, relatively speaking, easily gain citizenship in a manner that doesn't require them to self-deport. They would like to see people have some kind of pathway to citizenship.

A compromise type law that would provide some "wins" for both sides could be something like this...

A law that institutes the Military side of the Dream Act, allowing those over 18 and brought here illegally to enter into a standard military service contract and provisional citizenship that, upon completion of their initial service, becomes full citizenship. To be able to enter into such a program, their immediate relatives must come forward with them. Their records will be checked, and if they have no criminal record and are gainfully employed they will be allowed to stay in this country for the length of their childs military service in a way similar to our Work Visa (IE, not eligible for the various civil services, etc) during which they can apply to become a permanent citizen. During this time period, 2% of their salary and their child's military salary is garnished by the government as penalty for the illegal entry into the country. Additionally, the business in which they are gainfully employed will be tagged for an automatic check of their employee records for any other illegal workers they may have in their employee.

This would do a few things...

For Republicans:
- It's not allowing citizenship "For free", or "for doing something that's a privledge", or for doing something that's a "basic need to survive" but rather by putting their life at risk serving this country. This provides military manpower AND will help facilitate further "assimilation" into the American Culture by instilling a military mentality into the individuals

- The requirement of the immediate family coming forward allows us to identify and track more of the illegal population in this country. The designation as a Guest Worker allows a trackable method to check in terms of their attempted use of public services, and the garnished wages help provide a "punishment" for the illegal activity while also provide revenue. The fact they are "Guest Workers" doesn't give them a vote, and they don't get any enhanced movement up the line towards citizenship.

- The requirement to automatically trigger a check on the place of business allows us to crack down on businesses propagating the support of illegal immigration by hiring them, and potentially discovering a large group of illegals to remove from the country.

For Democrats:
- Children of illegals gain a way in which they can become a citizen of this country without having to leave and come back. They also, through access to the military, become eligible for additional government programs to assist them with furthering their education after their military service if they so choose.

- The Parents of said child get to stay in the country their child is putting their life on the line for, and attempt to gain citizenship without returning to their original country.

- Business owners are who are paying their individuals under the table, potentially paying inhumane low wages and who are not paying the appropriate government taxes in order to line their own pockets, are able to be discovered and dealt with.


To me, this is the type of compromise that SHOULD be able to work.

Democrats have to give up some of the SPECIFICS of how they want to accomplish some of their goals (provide citizenship to the children of illegals, provide expedited path to citizenship to illegals) or accept that they can't go to the EXTENT they want right this moment (ALL illegals), but their general goals are met at least for some of the population and that's better than not being met at all.

Republicans have to give up some of the SPECIFICS of how they want to accomplish some of their goals (no easy/free citizenship, get illegals out of the country) or accept that they can't go to the EXTENT they want right this moment (ALL illegals need to leave the country), but their general goals are met at least for some of the population and that's better than not being met at all.

This is a different sort of compromise than saying "Look...YOU vote for the Dream Act as it stands, and we'll vote for a border fence". In that situation, one side is having to go along with something that when taken in total actually goes strongly against some of their goals and the other side is then having to do the same. In the situation I stated above, I think it's more of a case of looking at what both sides want to get out of a situation, and attempting to find a THIRD solution that satisfies goals from each without largely stepping on the goals of each as well. Would both sides like MORE? Sure. But compared to status quo, it would be a net gain for both where as the traditional style "compromise" that is talked about currently is more of trading in a net wash (status quo) for a net wash (one thing you love / one thing you hate) which is also a net wash.
 
So, my question, mostly to those who voted for Obama:
Do you think Obama will live up to nation he painted in his victory speech and throughout the campaign?

I like what you said, but I don't think Obama was painting the nation, he was framing America's purpose as a reminder of the past and the hope of the future -- and the future challenges that face us. Here are some beautiful words spoken by the President:

I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting.

Colonists who came here could not have believed that they were living in what would become our democratic republic, free from the King. Those who fought in the American revolution knew the odds were against them. Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation knowing it very well could have split our country down the middle. Women finally got the right to vote. Americans with disabilities stood up for their rights, we led the world in innovation, we watched the civil rights movement and listened to Martin Luther King showing us a better tomorrow.

We dug our way out of the Great Depression with progressive policies that evolved and changed shape to meet the problems we faced. Now we're going to do it again, and 10 years from now, we will see a more efficient government and a more just nation. Those who want our laws to be based on their religion, who want fewer people to vote and fewer voices to be heard and fewer people to have affordable health care - those people will soon go and their primitive ideology will go with them. The biggest reason that America has flourished is the evolving nature of our constitution.

Barack Obama is the most divisive figure in America. At the end of the day, we're in exactly the same place we were two weeks ago. Republican/Tea Party controlled House, Democratic Senate, and Obama.

Same input, same output. More gridlock in Washington. More bickering, and nothing getting done for 2 years until the next senatorial races.

Liberals believe in using the government to help people. Conservatives believe in using the government as little as possible - to merely oversee our laws and land. Together, we can create a government that helps people with much greater efficiency, and we can cut back or cut out any expenditures which are not helping people. If you wish to see bickering and no action, that's fine, but to me it looks like you're endorsing a strategy that would harm our nation in the name of revenge. That's not something to be proud of, it's something to be ashamed of.
 
I'm not looking to do anything, since all i can do is vote, and that ended up being futile anyway.

I would hope that the House will do everything in its power to slow the decay of the American economy and of American values. As I see it, that means gridlocking the president for a few years.

Liberals believe in using the government to help people. Conservatives believe in using the government as little as possible - to merely oversee our laws and land. Together, we can create a government that helps people with much greater efficiency, and we can cut back or cut out any expenditures which are not helping people. If you wish to see bickering and no action, that's fine, but to me it looks like you're endorsing a strategy that would harm our nation in the name of revenge. That's not something to be proud of, it's something to be ashamed of.
 
Let me try to take an example that I think SHOULD be reasonable if both sides are able to give a bit and compromse.

Immigration. Specifically, looking at children brought here illegally.

Republicans don't want to simply give them free citizenship, free government services, or "reward" them with citizenship for doing something that is viewed as a privilege (college) or simply common sense necessary for survival (having a job). They want to see people here illegally go to the back of the line in terms of getting legal citizenship rights.

Democrats don't want children brought here by their parents to essentially suffer the sins of the parents and wish to give them a method in which they can, relatively speaking, easily gain citizenship in a manner that doesn't require them to self-deport. They would like to see people have some kind of pathway to citizenship.

A compromise type law that would provide some "wins" for both sides could be something like this...

A law that institutes the Military side of the Dream Act, allowing those over 18 and brought here illegally to enter into a standard military service contract and provisional citizenship that, upon completion of their initial service, becomes full citizenship. To be able to enter into such a program, their immediate relatives must come forward with them. Their records will be checked, and if they have no criminal record and are gainfully employed they will be allowed to stay in this country for the length of their childs military service in a way similar to our Work Visa (IE, not eligible for the various civil services, etc) during which they can apply to become a permanent citizen. During this time period, 2% of their salary and their child's military salary is garnished by the government as penalty for the illegal entry into the country. Additionally, the business in which they are gainfully employed will be tagged for an automatic check of their employee records for any other illegal workers they may have in their employee.

This would do a few things...

For Republicans:
- It's not allowing citizenship "For free", or "for doing something that's a privledge", or for doing something that's a "basic need to survive" but rather by putting their life at risk serving this country. This provides military manpower AND will help facilitate further "assimilation" into the American Culture by instilling a military mentality into the individuals

- The requirement of the immediate family coming forward allows us to identify and track more of the illegal population in this country. The designation as a Guest Worker allows a trackable method to check in terms of their attempted use of public services, and the garnished wages help provide a "punishment" for the illegal activity while also provide revenue. The fact they are "Guest Workers" doesn't give them a vote, and they don't get any enhanced movement up the line towards citizenship.

- The requirement to automatically trigger a check on the place of business allows us to crack down on businesses propagating the support of illegal immigration by hiring them, and potentially discovering a large group of illegals to remove from the country.

For Democrats:
- Children of illegals gain a way in which they can become a citizen of this country without having to leave and come back. They also, through access to the military, become eligible for additional government programs to assist them with furthering their education after their military service if they so choose.

- The Parents of said child get to stay in the country their child is putting their life on the line for, and attempt to gain citizenship without returning to their original country.

- Business owners are who are paying their individuals under the table, potentially paying inhumane low wages and who are not paying the appropriate government taxes in order to line their own pockets, are able to be discovered and dealt with.


To me, this is the type of compromise that SHOULD be able to work.

Democrats have to give up some of the SPECIFICS of how they want to accomplish some of their goals (provide citizenship to the children of illegals, provide expedited path to citizenship to illegals) or accept that they can't go to the EXTENT they want right this moment (ALL illegals), but their general goals are met at least for some of the population and that's better than not being met at all.

Republicans have to give up some of the SPECIFICS of how they want to accomplish some of their goals (no easy/free citizenship, get illegals out of the country) or accept that they can't go to the EXTENT they want right this moment (ALL illegals need to leave the country), but their general goals are met at least for some of the population and that's better than not being met at all.

This is a different sort of compromise than saying "Look...YOU vote for the Dream Act as it stands, and we'll vote for a border fence". In that situation, one side is having to go along with something that when taken in total actually goes strongly against some of their goals and the other side is then having to do the same. In the situation I stated above, I think it's more of a case of looking at what both sides want to get out of a situation, and attempting to find a THIRD solution that satisfies goals from each without largely stepping on the goals of each as well. Would both sides like MORE? Sure. But compared to status quo, it would be a net gain for both where as the traditional style "compromise" that is talked about currently is more of trading in a net wash (status quo) for a net wash (one thing you love / one thing you hate) which is also a net wash.

That sounds idyllic from the perspective of Americans who want a reasonable, fair, civil, and prosperous society, but it overlooks aspects of the issue that work on entirely different economic, cultural, and political levels.

As far this specific issue goes, the Democrats prosper the longer they stretch the issue out and the less they compromise with Republicans.

If both parties work out a fair and reasoned way to negotiate between the legal and numerical issues of Hispanic citizenship (which is tied to population growth), then over time that would make the Republican Party the party most favored by Hispanics.
 
No we aren't. We now know that most Americans don't agree with the old, rich, religious, white guy GOP platform. We also know that women get to maintain ownership of their vaginas for another 4 years. We know that the Tea Party drains life out of the GOP. We now know that unless the GOP begins to champion mainstream positions it's going to continue to suck hind tit. America is changing and the GOP is out of touch. The election proves it.

ummm...

You DO know that Obama only got 50% of the popular vote...right? The "old, rich, religious, white guy GOP platform" got the other 50%.

Liberal hyperbole is alive and well...even after it won.
 
Back
Top Bottom