Who held a leadership meeting on Inauguration Day to work out how to thwart whom? Who declared it to be their *top *priority to make whom a “one term President”?
Talk about selling lines … :rolleyes:
Take it to people who aren’t part of the reality-based community.
Their standard scapegoats are Bill Clinton and Barney Frank, somehow for making it easier for people to buy houses or something. They have to invoke a multi-year time lag to do it, though.
And even there, they’re wrong.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm
You might want to read the thread title and the first set of posts where people were denying that this was happening. To say “this is hardly worth noting” when it’s exactly what the thread is about is laughable. If that’s not worth noting, then ask the mods to close the thread because nothing is worth noting.
I kinda wonder - what would convince you that this view is wrong? Maybe numerous republican amendments adopted to Obamacare? Maybe changing it from the original plan, which was a single-payer system, at the behest of the republicans? Maybe the way he worked with them on the sequester or the fiscal cliff? Maybe the numerous republicans he appointed to government positions?
I have no idea how you reached this position. I don’t know what basis it has. But the democrats have reached across the aisle on numerous occasions.
He clearly, on the contrary, did not do that well in business. You know the litany of bankruptcies, failures to pay contractors, stiffing co-investors, hundreds of lawsuits to try to get him to be honest and to pay his bills…
and, as you also know, if he had taken the inheritance he got from his father and simply put it into the stock market, he would be, without doubt a multibillionaire. We do not know if he has any net worth, actually. He may well owe more than the value of his properties and assets.
Any discussion of ‘qualified’ that uses his business experience as a prop is just not credible.
I really think you are intelligent, but just are badly informed. Perhaps you are working from a desk in St. Petersburg…Russia.
<And, fwiw, gerrymandering isn’t something just Republicans do. Take a look at California, or even at Florida’s 5th district. Both parties do it when they can.>
Republicans have a policy in place to use control of every state legislature they have as a springboard to insure they never lose that control. Makes it easy to target the next one. Do Dems do the same? I don’t know, but why should either party be able to muss with elections by drawing lines that favor their situation? It should be illegal, period, ruled by federal courts, etc. and alternatives based on scientific randomness mandated.
And he’s a wee bit in debt.
(post shortened. Just telling you so you know, that’s not really how it was…)
Tough enough getting them to let some folks vote! Now you say those votes should be equal? Some people are just never satisfied!
You didn’t give any details about what you meant by “based on scientific randomness”, but some of the proposals I’ve heard of are probably illegal in their own right, and you probably wouldn’t like the results. They’d essentially be the perfect gerrymander. States that vote 55% one way, would get 100% of that party’s representatives in Congress.
If more people vote for Dems to be in the House, then more Dems should be in the House. Simple, really. If more people vote for Dems to be in the Senate, then more Dems should be in the Senate.
Can’t break this down any further for you, Hurr. That’s pretty much it.
This line in particular seems like a fairly ignorant view that ignores the Constitution and differences in various state’s populations. In 2016, in the general election for California’s Senate seat, the two Dem candidates garnered a little more than 10 million votes vs 0 for Republicans. That garnered the Dems one seat in the Senate. In Alaska, the Republicans won 111K to 28K for the Dem candidate. That 83K margin of victory garnered the Republicans a Senate seat as well.
The Senate, in particular, is pointedly not designed so that ‘if more people vote for Dems to be in the Senate, then more Dems should be in the Senate’. That’s not the way we do things in this country.
I know how we do things in this country. That’s what I’m trying to change. Duh.
You’re trying to change the apportionment of Senators?
Do we share any values at all? Like “one person, one vote”, “equality under the law”, any of that? I get the clear sense that you aren’t bemoaning something you think you cannot change, but gloating that I can’t.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
I certainly don’t want to see the Senate become just another House of Representatives. If that means we don’t “share any values at all”, then so be it.
There’s another option: opposition. If your effort ever gained any momentum, I’d oppose it.
The fact remains for all the polemic that attempting to delegitimize a candidate who has won a Presidential election is very bad for democracy. If an election can’t legitimize a President then what the hell can? Military force? Liberals who are screaming that Trump isn’t their President might care to reflect that’s precisely what Yayha Jammeh is saying in Gambia about his opponent who won a democratic election for President. Jammeh won’t accept the result because he doesn’t like it.
Do we really want to go there? Liberals need to accept that they lost and work to win the next time, not try to suggest, as they have been doing, that Trump is somehow not a legitimate President.
Well, just for starters, we aren’t “de-legitimizing” him. He is.
That wasn’t quite the question, was it? Do you recognize the inequality our Founders built into the system, wish you could change it, but can’t? 'Cause it sounds a lot like “neener neener”. Here’s your opportunity to clarify.
You are there. You’ve been there for eight years. The weeping and wailing from right-wing scum who claimed President of the United States of America Barack Hussein Obama wasn’t born in the US because they couldn’t handle having a black man as President proves this.