• 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 On Executive Actions: ‘I’ve Got A Pen And I’ve Got A Phone’

Status
Not open for further replies.
poweRob said:
it's funny because if you watch their political donations, they tend to often mirror the polls. They want to be able to tell the winner that they were REALLY for them all the time as indicated by how they gave them more money. You'll see surges in donations at the very end when a winner becomes more apparent.

well... it's funny if it weren't so damn sad.
Click to expand...

Exactly, also the money flows into the incumbents from corporations, Wall Street, Lobbyist etc much more than the challengers. What is not well know is corporations gave far more to the Democrats from 2006 until around July of 2010. That was when it became clear the Republicans would have a banner year and all of a sudden the money began to flow into the Republican camp leaving a lot of the Democrats high and dry.

According to ABC news to reinforce this during the Democrats reign, Obama raised and spent 750 in 2008, McCain only 368 million and that included federal matching funds. Romney kept it close enough to where the money was relative even in 2012, but even so Republican congressional candidates raised more money than the Democrats and in the senate races it was just the opposite. The reason was incumbents, which ever party has the most incumbents, they will get the most money. The reason is simple, incumbents usually win.

But the bottom line is both parties owe their heart and soul to these moneyed folks. That is truly the sad part of it all.
 
apdst said:
Funny how you constantly whine about partisanship, then degrade Bush and defend Obama. Great job! Done with your hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

LOL you'll have to show where I have defended Obama being a good president. I even said he was a horrible president. So was Bush.

No, the only thing I did was apply YOUR logic to Bush to show how idiotic your comments really are. Your partisan hackery comments have been shown for what they are. No, I haven't defended Obama and even have said several times he is a horrible president. Neither of them are a comparison to Hitler as you claim Obama is though.

Nice try, you're dismissed for the idiotic hack comments you present.
 
Montecresto said:
Wow! I think I've seen more progress in this thread than any. Enough Americans ever come to this realisation and we may just be able to repair what's wrong.
Click to expand...

I have known this for quite awhile. But it took me stepping outside of the two major party influence to notice it. Until I started campaigning and working for Perot, I was just as bad a party hack as any here on this site. But being away from their influence and propaganda caused me to open my eyes.

The trick to it is just to sit down and watch how the different presidents govern, not to listen to their rhetoric, speeches and slogans where they are always deriding the other party. There really isn't that much difference. George Wallace way back in 1968 had it right when he said, "There ain't a dimes worth of difference between the two major parties."

Governing, there isn't. Now in rhetoric, they are polar opposites. But rhetoric isn't governance.
 
Perotista said:
Exactly, also the money flows into the incumbents from corporations, Wall Street, Lobbyist etc much more than the challengers. What is not well know is corporations gave far more to the Democrats from 2006 until around July of 2010. That was when it became clear the Republicans would have a banner year and all of a sudden the money began to flow into the Republican camp leaving a lot of the Democrats high and dry.

According to ABC news to reinforce this during the Democrats reign, Obama raised and spent 750 in 2008, McCain only 368 million and that included federal matching funds. Romney kept it close enough to where the money was relative even in 2012, but even so Republican congressional candidates raised more money than the Democrats and in the senate races it was just the opposite. The reason was incumbents, which ever party has the most incumbents, they will get the most money. The reason is simple, incumbents usually win.

But the bottom line is both parties owe their heart and soul to these moneyed folks. That is truly the sad part of it all.
Click to expand...

Well it has some to do with trying to ride the victory wave but it has a lot to do with who they think will be in the majority because majorites run the committees. Committee chairmen are of the majority party and the chairmen decide what is brought to the floor for a vote or not. To them, it's a waste of money to invest in a minority party that will make noise but not be able to front their propositions to the house floor.
 
poweRob said:
Well it has some to do with trying to ride the victory wave but it has a lot to do with who they think will be in the majority because majorites run the committees. Committee chairmen are of the majority party and the chairmen decide what is brought to the floor for a vote or not. To them, it's a waste of money to invest in a minority party that will make noise but not be able to front their propositions to the house floor.
Click to expand...

Yep, throw in gerrymandering, don't you just love our fair election system?
 
Perotista said:
Yep, throw in gerrymandering, don't you just love our fair election system?
Click to expand...

I dislike our form of government more by the day. I tire of hearing people decry "founding father's intent". I know they didn't intend for our government to be as for sale as it is. So much so that lobbying is nothing more than legalized bribes.

Time to go full on parliamentary.
 
Perotista said:
That is the truth. It has been said that we really have only one political party, but it has two wings. The Republican wing and the Democratic wing. There is a reason Wall Street Firms and Corporations donate to both parties. Firms like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup etc. You can bet it is out of civics, it is to ensure that regardless of who wins, the winner owes them. These folks aren't stupid, you can bet they get a good return for their cash. If they didn't they wouldn't be giving all that money to the political parties. They will get their political favors in return.

Most people are too interested in the R and the D, they refuse to open their eyes to see what is really happening. You are correct, if one took off their deep colored red or blue glasses and stuck cotton in their ears to drown out the slogans, the rhetoric and talking points and just watched how Bush and Obama governed, they would see the two govern quite similar. But that R and D blocks this from their view. They have bought into the propaganda the two parties espouse.

So regardless of party, regardless whether it is Obama or Bush, it is business as usual. Taking care of those who gave them their money.
Click to expand...

Perotista said:
I have known this for quite awhile. But it took me stepping outside of the two major party influence to notice it. Until I started campaigning and working for Perot, I was just as bad a party hack as any here on this site. But being away from their influence and propaganda caused me to open my eyes.

The trick to it is just to sit down and watch how the different presidents govern, not to listen to their rhetoric, speeches and slogans where they are always deriding the other party. There really isn't that much difference. George Wallace way back in 1968 had it right when he said, "There ain't a dimes worth of difference between the two major parties."

Governing, there isn't. Now in rhetoric, they are polar opposites. But rhetoric isn't governance.
Click to expand...

I've long agreed with Wallace, on that at least. Supported Perot, too.
 
poweRob said:
I dislike our form of government more by the day. I tire of hearing people decry "founding father's intent". I know they didn't intend for our government to be as for sale as it is. So much so that lobbying is nothing more than legalized bribes.

Time to go full on parliamentary.
Click to expand...

When it comes to lobbyist and corporate money it is legalized bribery. These guys are not doing their civic duty, these guys expect a very healthy return on their investment and they get it. This also includes advocacy groups, I read an article about that on politico, the super pac told a congressman either to back what they wanted, what they were advocating for or they would give their money to his opponent.
 
Montecresto said:
I've long agreed with Wallace, on that at least. Supported Perot, too.
Click to expand...

For things to improve, somehow the election monopoly the Republicans and Democrats have on our system has to be broken. But it won't be as long as the Republicans and Democrats write the election laws as a mutual protection act for themselves. As long as they can spend a billion dollars each on the 2012 presidential campaign. Yep, Romney's camp spent a billion and Obama's camp spent a billion. In third place was Gary Johnson who spent 3 million. How can one get his message out when he is outspent 2 billion to 3 million.

The really sad part is all the people on who take pride on the amount of money their party and their candidates raise. They don't care if they were basically bought. As long as their party/candidate wins is all that matters.
 
Perotista said:
When it comes to lobbyist and corporate money it is legalized bribery. These guys are not doing their civic duty, these guys expect a very healthy return on their investment and they get it. This also includes advocacy groups, I read an article about that on politico, the super pac told a congressman either to back what they wanted, what they were advocating for or they would give their money to his opponent.
Click to expand...

Threats, bribery unlimited money to candidates... founding fathers' intent indeed.
 
poweRob said:
Threats, bribery unlimited money to candidates... founding fathers' intent indeed.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers and framers thought a citizen would leave his job for a couple of years and serve in congress for a term or two and go back home to his job, farm or what ever. They never envisioned the career politician. In fact there was no pay or benefits for those who severed in the early congress, just per diem to cover their expenses.

They must be rolling over in their grave over what has become of the system they left us. They could have never envisioned our electoral system coming to what it is today. Where money decides most political races.
 
Perotista said:
The founding fathers and framers thought a citizen would leave his job for a couple of years and serve in congress for a term or two and go back home to his job, farm or what ever. They never envisioned the career politician. In fact there was no pay or benefits for those who severed in the early congress, just per diem to cover their expenses.

They must be rolling over in their grave over what has become of the system they left us. They could have never envisioned our electoral system coming to what it is today. Where money decides most political races.
Click to expand...

Yep! You've got that all right.
 
Iron Yank said:
Do you even have a clue as to what the separation of powers here? Apparently not, I honestly think some of you progressives would support a dictatorship as long as the dictator is a Democrat. This is pathetic & very dangerous
Click to expand...

That is absolutely true. There are too many liberals that are of the useful idiot variety, and it will be because of them that the people of this country get screwed. They are like the frog in the water that gets boiled before he knows what's going on.

What, Obama just made a law on his own, and I get screwed? I didn't think he would do that. What, we can't undo it? He's taking more rights away from us? Gee, what happened? That's not what I wanted! But he said he knew best...
 
Perotista said:
The founding fathers and framers thought a citizen would leave his job for a couple of years and serve in congress for a term or two and go back home to his job, farm or what ever. They never envisioned the career politician. In fact there was no pay or benefits for those who severed in the early congress, just per diem to cover their expenses.

They must be rolling over in their grave over what has become of the system they left us. They could have never envisioned our electoral system coming to what it is today. Where money decides most political races.
Click to expand...

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
—U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)​
 
Anthony60 said:
That is absolutely true. There are too many liberals that are of the useful idiot variety, and it will be because of them that the people of this country get screwed. They are like the frog in the water that gets boiled before he knows what's going on.

What, Obama just made a law on his own, and I get screwed? I didn't think he would do that. What, we can't undo it? He's taking more rights away from us? Gee, what happened? That's not what I wanted! But he said he knew best...
Click to expand...

Jesus_facepalm.jpg
 
Montecresto said:
George Bush himself would have supported a dictatorship, he said so. Just as long as he was the dictator he said. Partisan Americans are the problem. Some few keep pointing this out but it doesn't seem to matter.
Click to expand...

Was that something he campaigned on? Or was that a poor joke he made? Did he say he wanted to fundamentally change the country? I don't think so.

Get real, your guy wants the Constitution and our liberties gone, and he'll decide for us. This jerk is not joking, he wants our Constitution gone, because it is the last thing standing between us and an oppressive government.
 
Anthony60 said:
I guess useful idiot touched a nerve?
Click to expand...

Which executive order, signing statement, or executive action by Obama had been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?
 
Anthony60 said:
What am I your Google??? Look it up yourself.
Click to expand...

You're the one screaming and raving about how Obama is about to bring on the apocolypse. Surely you know of one example?
 
poweRob said:
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
—U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)​
Click to expand...

Yep. That is happening to day. Both parties use the politics of divide and conquer in their search for votes. They turn us against one other, they use fear or install fear while dividing us. One can say we are now legally politically segregated. A very legal and IMO a more destructive for of segregation that what occurred in the deep south between reconstruction and the civil rights movement.

Both parties have their hands opened to anyone, anywhere for campaign cash. Both parties do not care that by accepting all those millions from corporations, lobbyist, wall street firms, they become no more than indentured servants to them. These moneyed folks now are now the ones running our government and determining our laws behind the faces of the politicians of the two major parties. Talk about Rome it her last days, I fear ditto for the U.S.
 
Anthony60 said:
Was that something he campaigned on? Or was that a poor joke he made? Did he say he wanted to fundamentally change the country? I don't think so.

Get real, your guy wants the Constitution and our liberties gone, and he'll decide for us. This jerk is not joking, he wants our Constitution gone, because it is the last thing standing between us and an oppressive government.
Click to expand...

I can assure you Anthony, that Obama is not my guy. You must have missed my first post in the thread. I only point out Bush's comments because there is a trend towards the imperial presidency that will not end when Obama leaves office unless partisans start being Americans first, and republicans or democrats second. As for Bush's comments being "a poor joke", sorry. It's not the kind of comment a president ever should make. You may not realize it, blinded by your partisan ideology at the time, but there were plenty of people who felt the same way about Bush, as we now feel about Obama. So his comment was FAR from a joke, or funny to us. And, it was a comment he made in variants, 2 or 3 different times. STOP being a partisan yourself, and stop acting as though the constitution is only important to you when a democrat is in the White House!!
 
Iron Yank said:
Do you even have a clue as to what the separation of powers here? Apparently not, I honestly think some of you progressives would support a dictatorship as long as the dictator is a Democrat. This is pathetic & very dangerous
Click to expand...

Do you know what the separation of powers is? Because from what I see you conservatives keep calling foul, then it turns out you were wrong. There is a difference between someone doing something you don't like and something being illegal. The president does have this power. This power granted to him, knowingly or not, by the people of the United States. Think back to all the times over his presidency that people have said that is illegal or unconstitutional and thrown hissy fits. What has come of that? To me it seems like nothing.

Furthermore I am not a progressive nor would I support a dictator. However I do realize that the president does have this power. He has exercised it before. I don't recall conservative panties being in a bunch when Bush did it. But then again I suppose you people would support a dictatorship as long as that dictator is a Republican right? I'll tell you like I told the last guy, if you don't like the things that the president is doing vote someone else in. And then you can support these same actions by a guy with a different letter in front of his name.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom