Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course they counted on it, their very own narcissistic megalomaniac was in charge when the changed the rules.
The reality distortion field that makes people see all these horrid things in Obama is really a hoot.
Maybe he's not been the most effective president in US history, but he's hardly a Trump Train Wreck. He's intelligent, articulate, and he tried to work with the crap Congress we gave him.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
The reality distortion field that makes people see all these horrid things in Obama is really a hoot.
Maybe he's not been the most effective president in US history, but he's hardly a Trump Train Wreck. He's intelligent, articulate, and he tried to work with the crap Congress we gave him.
He had full control of the Congress with supermajorities the first two years. He alone decided to wage war on half the country by abandoning all semblance of cooperation and compromise. That's why the Democrat Party turned into a fringe party relegated to large cities and the coasts.
If I were a liberal, I'd be disgusted by Obama for what he did to my party and the progressive movement. Most liberals aren't that sophisticated though. They are still stuck in the hero worship phase.
He had full control of the Congress with supermajorities the first two years. He alone decided to wage war on half the country by abandoning all semblance of cooperation and compromise. That's why the Democrat Party turned into a fringe party relegated to large cities and the coasts.
If I were a liberal, I'd be disgusted by Obama for what he did to my party and the progressive movement. Most liberals aren't that sophisticated though. They are still stuck in the hero worship phase.
I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent.
I lean liberal on social issues, and Obama has satisfied me with his progress in that area.
I'm not keen on what happened with regard to ISIL or the ACA, but I generally feel he's been an adequate president.
His approval ratings really aren't low and I guess that just upsets people who don't like him and/or are white nationalists, but we're headed into an administration with a president-elect whose ratings are abysmal.
And I will be very surprised if he EVER has decent ratings.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent.
I lean liberal on social issues, and Obama has satisfied me with his progress in that area.
I'm not keen on what happened with regard to ISIL or the ACA, but I generally feel he's been an adequate president.
His approval ratings really aren't low and I guess that just upsets people who don't like him and/or are white nationalists, but we're headed into an administration with a president-elect whose ratings are abysmal.
And I will be very surprised if he EVER has decent ratings.
He has been an absolute disaster as President. Trump probably will be too, but nobody really knows how that laboratory experiment will end. I'm hopeful until he dashes all hope.
He had full control of the Congress with supermajorities the first two years. He alone decided to wage war on half the country by abandoning all semblance of cooperation and compromise. That's why the Democrat Party turned into a fringe party relegated to large cities and the coasts.
If I were a liberal, I'd be disgusted by Obama for what he did to my party and the progressive movement. Most liberals aren't that sophisticated though. They are still stuck in the hero worship phase.
What complete and utter nonsense. this "fact" gets repeated over and over. Problem? Its not true.
And those 72 days? Only if no one went to the other side. They ABSOLUTELY knew what they were doing. The Republicans were making it impossible for a government to function. Period. Might they be on the other side later? Yup. It was discussed. AT LENGTH. But the bottom line is....we needed a functional government, and the GOP wasn't.
And those 72 days? Only if no one went to the other side. They ABSOLUTELY knew what they were doing. The Republicans were making it impossible for a government to function. Period. Might they be on the other side later? Yup. It was discussed. AT LENGTH. But the bottom line is....we needed a functional government, and the GOP wasn't.
I didn't say filibuster proof, I said supermajority. And even after Scott Brown was elected, your woeful party still had 59 Senate seats. That is a supermajority. That didn't stop your feckless and hopeless party of extremist wingnuts from nationalizing 18% of the economy through budget reconciliation. All the more laughable because would it really have taken much to get RINOs like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lisa Murkowski, etc. on board?
The government was absolutely functional with douche nozzle Harry Reid changing the rules at will to enact Obama's awful agenda. The problem Reid, Obama and apparently you have is that you still haven't figured out that the agenda and the way it was enacted has been completely rejected by reasonable people. That's why you're responsible for President Trump. Thanks.
But, Trump didn't have to pick such horrible people for his cabinet, so really, is it anyone's fault but his?
Nope.
I'd say that no matter which party changed this rule. They probably never counted on a narcissistic megalomaniac for a president.
Are you talking about Obama? Because that was the ONLY way to get Obama's cabinet in the WH... and you're right... they really were HORRIBLE people in Obama's cabinet...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.