Republicans did not support Barrack Obama

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Zombie Acorn, Jan 15, 2017.

  1. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #1
    Im seeing revisionist histories starting on many conservative leaning news sites that the right just "fell in line" when Obama was elected. Let's remember that the right obstructed the Obama administration anywhere that they could during his administration and should probably expect the same in return. Although I find the violence from the left unprecedented, let's not pretend like our side was civil the entire Obama term.

    I just wanted to make sure it was clear that Republicans did not get behind Obama to "bring the nation together", republicans did not support Barrack Obama.
     
  2. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
  3. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #3
    Obama was weak and ineffectual. A president like LBJ would have crushed the GOP with parliamentary skills, or gone over Congress and spoken directly to the people like Ronald Reagan. Obama lacked the fighter's instinct and the communicative ability to be a transformative President.
     
  4. macmee, Jan 15, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2017

    macmee Suspended

    macmee

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #4
    A president like LBJ had a little more political capital than obama did.

    You know... because JFK had just been ****ing shot to death.

    Obama could've saved you from dying of cancer with Obamacare and you'd still find some ******** reason that makes no sense to dislike him.
     
  5. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #5
    True. Possibly one of the greater understatements I've seen recently, but true all the same.

    What is the "loyal opposition" supposed to do with the Trump Administration? What is the honorable, legal, patriotic, and principled course of action - when confronted with an Administration that not only is proposing policies one believes to be contrary to the good of the country (massive tax cuts for the rich, repeal of the ACA) - but is also headed by a man whose competence, if not to say actual mental fitness, is in serious question?

    I saw Barack Obama's comments on Donald Trump in part of Steve Kroft's 60 minutes interview. Obama is obviously a strong believer in the power of the most exclusive labor union in the world: Ex-Presidents of the United States. And rule #1 for that club is: Don't diss your successor. Or any of your recent predecessors.

    As I said a while ago: If Trump proposes something I agree with - I'll support him. If he really can put together a jobs program that actually makes sense, I'll cheer him on. Ditto if he proposes a plan that actually improves on the ACA. I'm not optimistic on those scores, but I'll take a "wait and see" approach.

    Trump must know he is entering office under something of a cloud of suspicion. And frankly, he's done a lot to create that himself. His business ties present hopelessly entangled conflicts of interest. His refusal to release his tax returns makes this worse. His statements on Vladimir Putin and Russia are alarming - to say the least. And his habit of attacking everyone from journalists to actresses and beauty pageant contestants is unbecoming a President of the United States.

    It's up to Trump to earn the respect of millions of Americans who, like me, did not vote for him. He is supposed to be President of ALL Americans. He needs to keep that in mind.
     
  6. macmee Suspended

    macmee

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #6
    I think Trump will somehow either be really good, or a complete disaster. Most of my money is on the latter.
     
  7. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #7
    Political capital had nothing to do with it. LBJ was experienced, ruthless, indefatigable, and he knew how to flatter, threaten, and bribe his opponents to pass legislation. I suggest you read the Robert Caro's magisterial 4-volume LBJ biography to get the full measure of the man.
     
  8. macmee Suspended

    macmee

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #8
    Obama graduated from Harvard Law, taught law at UoC, and was a Jr. Senator. In what world do you live in where Obama lacks experience to be the President but Trump doesn't?
     
  9. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #9
    Ivy League degrees mean squat in the real world of politics. LBJ had a degree from a rural teacher's college in Texas and rose to the pinnacle of political power.
     
  10. macmee Suspended

    macmee

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #10
    Evidently, no credentials mean anything at all when it comes to being the President, because if Trump is qualified then other 5 year olds all around the world are qualified.
     
  11. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #11
    Obamacare did save a lot of people. And there's a lot in ACA that works and works well - like caps on insurance out of pockets, keeping kids on insurance until 26. Prohibiting the cap on life benefits, etc. If the Repubs come up with something better, great. But currently, all I see in regards to the ACA (and from Trump's bragging) is that this is more of "spite" move than one that will lead to a better situation.

    Someone I know who works in law (healthcare) said that a lot of what the Repubs want (really) is tort reform so insurance companies can have the upper hand with lawsuits.
     
  12. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #12
    Would it have killed you to cite just ONE example of that nonsense you claim to have seen?

    Democrats obstructed Bush from the get-go and especially after his second term, so Republicans were simply paying the Dems back during Obama's term. Now, of course, the Democrats are going even more berserk, so Trump won't be able to work with them at all. Shouldn't be a problem as long as the Republicans get a few things done that Real Americans want. Then when more Democrats lose the next election, we can really cut loose on the Dems.
     
  13. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #13
    That's a ridiculous term. REAL Americans. We're all Americans who live here and who are citizens. Talk about snowflake language.
     
  14. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #14
    Not at all. Real Americans don't support burning the flag. Do you support burning the flag?
     
  15. macmee Suspended

    macmee

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #15
    Yeah this is what I fear tbh. Democrats obstructed bush abit, then republicans obstructed obama quite a lot (to the point of blocking a SCOTUS nom which is completely unprecedented). So what happens now? Do democrats become even more aggressive obstructors than during bush? Even moreso than republicans to Obama? We're circling a drain here.
     
  16. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #16
    You're either American or you are not. There's no real or fake Americans. Do I support burning the flag? I would never do it. I support the right to do it and the brave people who fought for our country so that we had the freedom to express ourselves in such a matter without persecution. I would say that trying to limit this freedom craps on the constitution and makes one LESS American. Notice I said less and not FAKE or REAL.
     
  17. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #17
    Real Americans are simply Patriotic Americans, only more so.

    Yes yes. But do you support burning the flag? Not the right to do so, but the act itself?
     
  18. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #18
    How else are you supposed to legally dispose of it then?
     
  19. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #19
    Can you qualify that?

    I suspect you mean "burning the flag as a protest", as distinct from "burning the flag as a solemn way of disposing of unserviceable flags". I strongly suspect that what you call "Real Americans" would not disapprove of the latter. In other words, it's what one is thinking as one is doing it.
     
  20. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #20
    Most five year olds don't run a multinational conglomerate.
     
  21. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #21
    Buried at the base of every Army base flagpole is a box containing a razor blade, a book of matches, and a .45 pistol. When the post is about to be overrun the last man lowers the flag, slices it up with the razor blade, burns it, and shoots himself. At least that's what our drill sergeants told us. :D
     
  22. macmee Suspended

    macmee

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #22
    Most 5 year olds aren't born into rich families with daddies who give them millions of dollars for free, either.
     
  23. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #23
    Ahem:
    Democrats Are United in Plans To Block Top Bush Initiatives
    By Dan Balz
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Monday, January 10, 2005; Page A01
    As President Bush prepares for his second term, Democrats in Washington and around the country are organizing for a year of confrontation and resistance, saying they are determined to block Bush's major initiatives and thereby deny him the mandate he has claimed from his reelection victory last November.​
    And that was before Democrats worked to block Bush's Supreme Court nominees:

    2007: Democrat vows to block Bush Supreme Court nominee
    With Justice Antonin Scalia's passing comes the task of nominating a replacement. CNN's Erin Burnett recalls a clip of Sen. Chuck Schumer vowing to block a nominee of President Bush's in 2007
    So much for "unprecedented".
     
  24. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #24
    I'm not sure I thought to differentiate between the two. What do you see as the difference?

    And your definition is arbitrary. Any one in this country who is a citizen is a real American. Being patriotic doesn't make you real or fake.

    I don't agree with your labeling.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 15, 2017 ---
    Running a company and running the country are two different things. How people conflate the two is mind boggling.
     
  25. macmee Suspended

    macmee

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #25
    1. Bush never won a "mandate" lol he never even got to 290

    2. Dems never blocked a hearing for SCOTUS like the republicans have, that's an all new low
     

Share This Page