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.
I was just curious what Democrats would do with both houses of Congress. Last time it happened, they were annihilated during the mid-terms. I was just curious why Democrats want both houses again.
Well last time they played too cautious and needed to get a super majority to do the most basic of functions. So unless the Democrats have a super majority control, I imagine things will look exactly like how they currently look.
I was just curious what Democrats would do with both houses of Congress. Last time it happened, they were annihilated during the mid-terms. I was just curious why Democrats want both houses again.
Well, based on last time, they won't pass a budget.
Well last time they played too cautious and needed to get a super majority to do the most basic of functions. So unless the Democrats have a super majority control, I imagine things will look exactly like how they currently look.
I think they played the opposite of too cautious. Think one side got just a little bit too excited with their so called "mandate to govern" and maybe overstepped just a wee bit.
I think they played the opposite of too cautious. Think one side got just a little bit too excited with their so called "mandate to govern" and maybe overstepped just a wee bit.
Yeah, just like the first two years of Clinton's presidency. He got his hand slapped in 1994, and was actually a decent president after that, (in spite of his personal issues).
I think they played the opposite of too cautious. Think one side got just a little bit too excited with their so called "mandate to govern" and maybe overstepped just a wee bit.
I disagree, they spent much of those two years compromising too much and needed a super majority for just about everything. The Republicans were drunk on filibusters during that time and I imagine a repeat of that without a super majority.
I disagree, they spent much of those two years compromising too much and needed a super majority for just about everything. The Republicans were drunk on filibusters during that time and I imagine a repeat of that without a super majority.
So you're saying the Democrats shouldn't compromise, but are upset at the republicans because they won't compromise. Brilliant.
Well last time they played too cautious and needed to get a super majority to do the most basic of functions. So unless the Democrats have a super majority control, I imagine things will look exactly like how they currently look.
Please excuse my ignorance . . . are there filibusterers in the house, or is that a senate thing only?
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.
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.
