America divided

[abc123]

Again, I defer to the Vice interview with Obama, Boehner and Cantor. I actually found respect for Boehner as he goes into depth about how he and Obama had had meetings and deals but was pressured, then finally ousted by thew Tea Party and hardline Conservatives. Before the interview I had always thought of Boehner as a complete prick.

yeah, i agree. he definitely did get caught up in being a public obstructionist though. it seems that he and Obama warmed up to each other too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St9AoQZr3-k

[abc123]

Insulting the very people whose input you desire, at a public meeting, purportedly arranged to acquire such input, is not an olive branch, it is Poison Ivy. Obama's "Elections have consequences" remarks seemingly revealed an apparent insincerity regarding the outreach. Apparently, in your world, the superficial perception of inclusiveness transcends the tangible reality of unwavering, entrenched partisanship.

Your comments about Reconciliation seems to support my point: The "Affordable Care Act" was going to get rammed through, no matter what the deficits, or what anyone thought of it. It appears now that it was not well thought out. President Obama says that it needs adjustment. Bill Clinton called it, I believe, a "crazy system." Reid's Reconciliation may have been good politics, but poor governance. That was my point I was trying to make in my previous posts regarding the historic bi partisan cooperation/efforts on issues of national significance.

lol at a 7 hour summit as being "superficial". you are hopeless.

[mark blazejewski]

lol at a 7 hour summit as being "superficial". you are hopeless.

Summits, based on civility, no matter how long or short, are an exchange of ideas. Closed-minded, vindictive lectures, based on arrogance, no matter how long or short,, are not. I believe even you referred to "a couple" of Obama's "of uppity quotes" Thank you for the apparent bi polar exchange. GOOOOBYE.

[abc123]

oh, i see, he doesn't really reach across the aisle because you don't like his style. well, in that case...


there is a recent phenomenon of long memories and incredible sensitivity when it comes to things that Obama said 8 years ago, or what Hillary Clinton said in the summer, and on the other hand complete dismissal or disinterest of what trump says on a weekly basis. it is an amazing thing to witness.

[mark blazejewski]

oh, i see, he doesn't really reach across the aisle because you don't like his style. well, in that case...


there is a recent phenomenon of long memories and incredible sensitivity when it comes to things that Obama said 8 years ago, or what Hillary Clinton said in the summer, and on the other hand complete dismissal or disinterest of what trump says on a weekly basis. it is an amazing thing to witness.

Let me amend my remarks. Since one can not make thoughtful observations without being called "hopeless" or having his comments referred to as "BS," let me join such commentators in an exercise of their own style:

Enjoy your Inaugural Day protests. I hope you don't get frost bitten pissing into the tent. Now, GOOOOBYE!

[buffalopundit]

oh, i see, he doesn't really reach across the aisle because you don't like his style. well, in that case...


there is a recent phenomenon of long memories and incredible sensitivity when it comes to things that Obama said 8 years ago, or what Hillary Clinton said in the summer, and on the other hand complete dismissal or disinterest of what trump says on a weekly basis. it is an amazing thing to witness.

Today in "Draining the Swamp".

Y'all bought a Shamwow only to find out it's a glorified paper towel.

[abc123]

well, he says stupid stuff and then he walks it back. it is his thing.

[Jeff]

Today in "Draining the Swamp".

Y'all bought a Shamwow only to find out it's a glorified paper towel.

And this...

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...trump-pardons/

Gingrich, the former speaker of the House and one-time potential running mate for Trump, says Trump should push Congress for legislation that accounts for a billionaire businessman in the White House. "We've never seen this kind of wealth in the White House, and so traditional rules don't work," Gingrich said Monday during an appearance on NPR's "The Diane Rehm Show" about the president-elect's business interests. "We're going to have to think up a whole new approach." And should someone in the Trump administration cross the line, Gingrich has a potential answer for that too. "In the case of the president, he has a broad ability to organize the White House the way he wants to. He also has, frankly, the power of the pardon," Gingrich said. "It's a totally open power. He could simply say, 'Look, I want them to be my advisers. I pardon them if anyone finds them to have behaved against the rules. Period. Technically, under the Constitution, he has that level of authority."

[Jeff]

Why is it that the frustration of the left so often results in vulgarity?

No, you give me a break. Concerning the political opposition's support for landmark legislation, such as The Affordable Care Act, most Presidents found reaching across the isle quite helpful. Some examples:

(1) The Marshall Plan, the legislative components of the Truman Doctrine, and the NATO Treaty all received bi partisan support.

(2) Lyndon Johnson was able to pass the proposed Kennedy tax cuts in 1964 by reaching across the aisle. Those tax cuts received the support of 21 Republicans in the Senate alone.

(3) The Johnson-Kennedy 1964 Civil Rights Act received 136 Republican votes in the House, and 30 Republican votes in the Senate.

(4) Nixon found reaching across the isle helpful in 1972 when a Democrat Senate overwhelmingly passed SALT I 88-2.

(5) Reagan found Tip O'Neil's support helpful when it came to implementing aspects of his program.

(6) Bill Clinton worked with Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole on Welfare Reform and the Brady Bill.

It went both ways, Democrat Presidents relied on Republican legislators, and Republican Presidents relied on Democrat legislators.

More recently, the tone took a serious downturn.

BTW, President Obama today recommended that President-elect Trump avoid executive orders, and be inclusive of Democrat ideas concerning legislation and issues of significance, because the legislative process is "harder to undo."

I agree with Obama's current advise. I disagreed with President's 2009 and 2010 approach. If you do not want opposition input into the design of your program, don't expect support. Let's see what Trump does before he is condemned as being "authoritarian," or "non-inclusive." Remember, he does not become President until January 20. Can you wait until January 21 before you condemn him?

Don't confuse me pointing out facts with frustration.

None of you you stated above has any relevance to the GOP from 2008 - present.

[OutsidetheBox]

Seriously, you are going to equate what takes place in our inept/dysfunctional government with the aftermath of this election and the organizing taking place now to involve the public to disrupt our government’s future administration? And then for some to use the kindergarten rebut of, “you started it.” That’s good for our country how?

You’re ok with the intimidation and threats leveled against people in the private sector who don’t tow the leftist line?

Who said I supported the likes of Mitch McConnell who voiced open opposition to Obama’s administration? What happened in the past and what is taking place now is counterproductive to the best interests of the country and the citizenry should not be misled in following such practices by either party.

I'm not saying any of the one-sided policy is good, it wasn't good when Republicans did it and it's not good now when Democrats are doing it. My point was you act in shock over what the Democrats are saying they're going to do now but the same exact thing has already happened on the opposite side so it shouldn't be to surprising as unfortunate as it is.

And if you want to talk about intimidation and threats against private people look no further than Trump's twitter account.

[mark blazejewski]

Don't confuse me pointing out facts with frustration.

None of you you stated above has any relevance to the GOP from 2008 - present.

(1) I don't know what you are trying to say. I'm not frustrated, are you? I'm not confused, are you.?

(2) No relevance? Really? We still have the same Constitution, the same separation of powers, the same political set, and the same government. But thank you for your sage wisdom.

GET OVER IT GUYS!

[Jeff]

(1) I don't know what you are trying to say. I'm not frustrated, are you? I'm not confused, are you.?

(2) No relevance? Really? We still have the same Constitution, the same separation of powers, the same political set, and the same government. But thank you for your sage wisdom.

GET OVER IT GUYS!

1. Apparently you are confused. sigh...
2. The same Government? if you say so.

What, in your mind would "getting over it" constitute?

For the record, I accept that Trump was elected POTUS and have no delusions of him serving anything less than a 4 year term.

[mark blazejewski]

1. Apparently you are confused. sigh...
2. The same Government? if you say so.

What, in your mind would "getting over it" constitute?

For the record, I accept that Trump was elected POTUS and have no delusions of him serving anything less than a 4 year term.

Sorry that my alleged confusion bores you (sigh...)

Last time I checked we have a Constitution which provides for: (1) A Congress (legislative branch) under Article One; (2) A President (executive branch) under Article Two; (3) A Judiciary, under Article Three. I think that was, and still is, the Constitutionally-designated structure of our government But, I may be "confused" again. Be patient, I am older, lest you teeter on senior bigotry.

If you accept Trump as the duly elected President, you are over it. Congratulations!

[mark blazejewski]

Yeah, I'm talking about the Republicans.

I didn't think you were talking about Know-Nothing Party. But thanks for the entirely unnecessary clarification.

[BorderBob]

I'm not saying any of the one-sided policy is good, it wasn't good when Republicans did it and it's not good now when Democrats are doing it. My point was you act in shock over what the Democrats are saying they're going to do now but the same exact thing has already happened on the opposite side so it shouldn't be to surprising as unfortunate as it is.

And if you want to talk about intimidation and threats against private people look no further than Trump's twitter account.

Well, there does seem to be one difference. This coming protest is by the people. In '09 it was just the swamp.




b.b.