• 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!

Talk about not getting what you paid for!

JasperL said:
You're only shocked because of your ignorance, apparently. Obama did go to Congress, repeatedly. In 2010, for example, it passed the House and "failed" in the Senate because of a GOP filibuster 55-41. Typical of Republicans, many of the NO votes when it counted now act all concerned about Trump's announcement - e.g. Hatch, McCain (of course), Graham.
Click to expand...

The senator who effectively killed DACA in the Senate is now the AG.
 
joG said:
Quick with your excuses, smoke and mirrors, I see.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out that your "shock" would not have happened if you weren't ignorant of the legislative history of the DREAM Act. Not my fault you didn't know the history, or pretended not to.

If you want to blame Obama for failing to get to 60 votes over one of the dozens of GOP filibusters of the Obama years, that's fine, but you'll have to recognize that it was introduced and backed by the White House in 2009, several times in 2010, and again in 2011. There was always an excuse for the GOP to oppose it.
 
JasperL said:
Just pointing out that your "shock" would not have happened if you weren't ignorant of the legislative history of the DREAM Act. Not my fault you didn't know the history, or pretended not to.

If you want to blame Obama for failing to get to 60 votes over one of the dozens of GOP filibusters of the Obama years, that's fine, but you'll have to recognize that it was introduced and backed by the White House in 2009, several times in 2010, and again in 2011. There was always an excuse for the GOP to oppose it.
Click to expand...

I knew that quite well. I also know that it is up to the President to get legislation done. Too difficult is not really an excuse as you would have it. If you are honest, a filibuster should not force you to do a shoddy job. In a case of a non-professional politician it is bad enough, but in a case like Obama's it is inexcusable to do a sloppy job and then accuse your successor of wanting to have the Constitutional mess corrected.
 
It is too bad that some of the posters get al of their info from Fox News and Limbaugh. Thuss they get only the very right wing slant on all of their news. You can't blame them for their lack of the whole story, or can you?
 
Parrish said:
The senator who effectively killed DACA in the Senate is now the AG.
Click to expand...

He was one of them for sure. But I don't actually have as big a problem with Sessions as the hypocrites. He's openly hostile to immigration, always opposed to any form of amnesty, etc. If you're in Alabama and vote for Sessions, you know what you're going to get - essentially the alt-right position on immigration. Fine. Don't like the man and wouldn't ever vote for him, but that's who he is, and he doesn't pretend to be any different. Who I really despise are the hypocrites who want to pretend to care about the DACA folks, but always find an excuse to vote NO. Where it counts, they're the same person as Sessions.
 
independentusa said:
A Guide To Read About DACA, Before You Sound Racist Online | HuffPost
I have read about what right wingers and the GOP have said about Dreamers getting all these government benefits and costing Americans billions, but I wonder just how that works. If you read the article above you will see that there are very few government benefits they can actually use. No welfare, no Medicaid and no ACA. What is even more interesting in the article though is what they pay for that they can never collect, Social Security. They pay into the system,but they can never collect from the system as long as they are covered by DACA. So they pay the same taxes as Americans but get none of the benefits of being a citizen. Talk about not getting what you paid for!
Click to expand...

That's what identity theft is for.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/22/14-million-illegals-working-stolen-social-security/
 
joG said:
I knew that quite well. I also know that it is up to the President to get legislation done. Too difficult is not really an excuse as you would have it. If you are honest, a filibuster should not force you to do a shoddy job. In a case of a non-professional politician it is bad enough, but in a case like Obama's it is inexcusable to do a sloppy job and then accuse your successor of wanting to have the Constitutional mess corrected.
Click to expand...

Well, now you're just moving the goal posts because your initial position was based on a falsehood.

Let's replay your quote: "That is why I am basically shocked that a Democrat [sic] President chose a temporary EO instead of going to a majority Democrat Congress with a robust law to make it permanent."

That's a false statement. He didn't choose an EO instead of going to Congress. He tried for three years to get it through Congress, that failed because of GOP filibusters, and the EO (actually not an EO but a memo) was issued because the repeated attempts to get legislation through Congress failed. If not the "EO" the alternative was not "legislation" (which had repeatedly failed due to GOP obstruction) but nothing.

It's not my fault you typed a false statement. If you knew better, choose your words better so your argument is based on reality and not an alternative history.
 
JasperL said:
Well, now you're just moving the goal posts because your initial position was based on a falsehood.

Let's replay your quote: "That is why I am basically shocked that a Democrat [sic] President chose a temporary EO instead of going to a majority Democrat Congress with a robust law to make it permanent."

That's a false statement. He didn't choose an EO instead of going to Congress. He tried for three years to get it through Congress, that failed because of GOP filibusters, and the EO (actually not an EO but a memo) was issued because the repeated attempts to get legislation through Congress failed.

It's not my fault you typed a false statement. If you knew better, choose your words better so your argument is based on reality and not an alternative history.
Click to expand...

He did choose. He chose a temporary EO instead of going to a majority Democrat Congress with a robust law to make it permanent. The only thing you might want to criticize is that he did it ineffectually and so technically had petitioned Congress. But he was too lazy to walk the walk. In effect if not in legalistic terms, it was the same mess he made as with ACA. He was prone to take the sloppy alternative instead of doing things right. By taking that road he did more damage than had he sat on his hands and done nothing. But that is, what you get, when you give someone with too little experience to realize that "No he couldn't". He woke all sorts of expectations and demands and spread deep divisiveness in this inexperience. The damage we did by giving that inexperienced person command has done huge damage.

And then we did it again.
 
joG said:
He did choose. He chose a temporary EO instead of going to a majority Democrat Congress with a robust law to make it permanent. The only thing you might want to criticize is that he did it ineffectually and so technically had petitioned Congress. But he was too lazy to walk the walk. In effect if not in legalistic terms, it was the same mess he made as with ACA. He was prone to take the sloppy alternative instead of doing things right. By taking that road he did more damage than had he sat on his hands and done nothing. But that is, what you get, when you give someone with too little experience to realize that "No he couldn't". He woke all sorts of expectations and demands and spread deep divisiveness in this inexperience. The damage we did by giving that inexperienced person command has done huge damage.

And then we did it again.
Click to expand...

LMAO. That's pathetic stuff right there. Faced with the FACT that he did repeatedly go to Congress, you've redefined that term to mean that of course he went to Congress over and over, it's in the Congressional record that anyone with an internet connection can look up in 3 seconds or less, but the bill failed to pass over GOP obstruction efforts. Again, this "technical" attempt to get through Congress was an actual bill with actual votes that, after several previous failed attempts of actual bills in 2009 and earlier in 2010, passed the Democratic House and "failed" in the Democratic Senate with 55 votes in FAVOR of the bill. It needed 60 because like nearly every other bill in the Senate, the GOP filibustered it and raised the bar to 60 votes.

If you want, you can blame him for the "EO" versus doing nothing, but that's a different argument although it has the advantage of being honest and consistent with reality.

And the rest is just more goal post moving. :roll:
 
JasperL said:
LMAO. That's pathetic stuff right there. Faced with the FACT that he did repeatedly go to Congress, you've redefined that term to mean that of course he went to Congress over and over, it's in the Congressional record that anyone with an internet connection can look up in 3 seconds or less, but the bill failed to pass over GOP obstruction efforts. Again, this "technical" attempt to get through Congress was an actual bill with actual votes that, after several previous failed attempts of actual bills in 2009 and earlier in 2010, passed the Democratic House and "failed" in the Democratic Senate with 55 votes in FAVOR of the bill. It needed 60 because like nearly every other bill in the Senate, the GOP filibustered it and raised the bar to 60 votes.

If you want, you can blame him for the "EO" versus doing nothing, but that's a different argument although it has the advantage of being honest and consistent with reality.

And the rest is just more goal post moving. :roll:
Click to expand...

You don't seem to realize that going to Congress is not the achievement and that when denied, it is embarrassing to watch a President mess himself in frustration. What a dud he was.
 
joG said:
You don't seem to realize that going to Congress is not the achievement and that when denied, it is embarrassing to watch a President mess himself in frustration. What a dud he was.
Click to expand...

Of course you were supposedly shocked he did NOT go to Congress. So more goal post moving. Obama sucks....blah, blah. Got it.
 
JasperL said:
Of course you were supposedly shocked he did NOT go to Congress. So more goal post moving. Obama sucks....blah, blah. Got it.
Click to expand...

You are much too uptight. Sort of like the anal-retentive personality type that Freud describes. It's so sad.

;)
 
joG said:
You are much too uptight. Sort of like the anal-retentive personality type that Freud describes. It's so sad.

;)
Click to expand...

Not sure where that comes from. I typed that last post with a smile cause your response was funny haha laughing at it. And I'm 54 and at no time in my life have I been described in general as uptight or anal-retentive. Sort of the opposite in fact. It's so sad you'd make moronic personality judgements of people you don't know because on a DEBATE FORUM they call out your weak arguments.... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom