At stake, not JUST the oval office.....

[Redfish]

would a one party government make you happy? Do you realize that you are wishing for a dictatorship with no checks and balances?

How you arrived to the above "conclusion" is beyond me........My contention is that after this election cycle, a SANER GOP will have to emerge to mitigate the party's heavy losses.....For more than 7 years, the GOP stance has been nothing but an obstructive, hate-filled party........Enough.

amazingly stupid. the obstructionists have been Reid and Obama. Reid refused to bring over 300 house passed bills to a vote in the senate, Obama has refused to compromise, or even discuss compromises, on anything. ACA was passed by dems only using reconciliation, a practice never before used for something so important. No discussion was allowed on the floor of either the house or senate. the vote was forced before anyone had time to read the bill. And you accuse the GOP of obstruction???? what planet are you posting from.

in your earlier post you were all excited about a dem president and dems taking over congress----------------a one party government. I merely asked if you had thought about the implications of what you were wishing for.

 

[nat4900]

in your earlier post you were all excited about a dem president and dems taking over congress----------------a one party government. I merely asked if you had thought about the implications of what you were wishing for.

How does a GOP led House of Reps fit into your definition of a "one-party government"???

 

[Redfish]

in your earlier post you were all excited about a dem president and dems taking over congress----------------a one party government. I merely asked if you had thought about the implications of what you were wishing for.

How does a GOP led House of Reps fit into your definition of a "one-party government"???

Well, you tell me. During the time that the dems had the senate and the GOP had the house, did anything the GOP led house passed get to the floor of the senate?

The party that controls the WH and either house of congress controls the government. Personally I would like to see some balance with neither extreme having control. Currently the far left is driving us into fiscal ruin and social disaster, some of that foolishness needs to be balanced.

 

[rightwinger]

Garland is anti 2nd amendment, he would have no chance of being confirmed. Why waste the time?

Garland was nominated by Obama to simply show the American voter just how out of step and anti-Constitution republican senators have become based on their Obama-hatred. Garland is a nearly "perfect" candidate and a bit too moderate for progressives.........In my opinion, Obama nominated him to drive in the last nail in the coffin of a GOP loss in the senate.

Republicans are making a deal with the devil in putting all their faith in an eventual Trump victory

1. What makes them think Trump will win?
2. If Trump were to win, what makes them think he would pick someone they like?

 

[rightwinger]

in your earlier post you were all excited about a dem president and dems taking over congress----------------a one party government. I merely asked if you had thought about the implications of what you were wishing for.

How does a GOP led House of Reps fit into your definition of a "one-party government"???

Well, you tell me. During the time that the dems had the senate and the GOP had the house, did anything the GOP led house passed get to the floor of the senate?

The party that controls the WH and either house of congress controls the government. Personally I would like to see some balance with neither extreme having control. Currently the far left is driving us into fiscal ruin and social disaster, some of that foolishness needs to be balanced.

The Senate was in full fillibuster at the time. Nothing the Dems passed got through the Senate either. Republicans could push through any pandering piece of legislation they wanted through the House. They needed 60 votes to get anything through the Senate...they had 45

 

[rightwinger]

would a one party government make you happy? Do you realize that you are wishing for a dictatorship with no checks and balances?

How you arrived to the above "conclusion" is beyond me........My contention is that after this election cycle, a SANER GOP will have to emerge to mitigate the party's heavy losses.....For more than 7 years, the GOP stance has been nothing but an obstructive, hate-filled party........Enough.

amazingly stupid. the obstructionists have been Reid and Obama. Reid refused to bring over 300 house passed bills to a vote in the senate, Obama has refused to compromise, or even discuss compromises, on anything. ACA was passed by dems only using reconciliation, a practice never before used for something so important. No discussion was allowed on the floor of either the house or senate. the vote was forced before anyone had time to read the bill. And you accuse the GOP of obstruction???? what planet are you posting from.

in your earlier post you were all excited about a dem president and dems taking over congress----------------a one party government. I merely asked if you had thought about the implications of what you were wishing for.

How many of the Democrats bills did Republicans allow through the Senate without 60 votes?

Why should Republican bills get through with 45?

 

[Redfish]

Garland is anti 2nd amendment, he would have no chance of being confirmed. Why waste the time?

Garland was nominated by Obama to simply show the American voter just how out of step and anti-Constitution republican senators have become based on their Obama-hatred. Garland is a nearly "perfect" candidate and a bit too moderate for progressives.........In my opinion, Obama nominated him to drive in the last nail in the coffin of a GOP loss in the senate.

Republicans are making a deal with the devil in putting all their faith in an eventual Trump victory

1. What makes them think Trump will win?
2. If Trump were to win, what makes them think he would pick someone they like?

Trump is a symptom. A symptom that americans are fed up with the establishment and its promises that never happen. they are fed up with political corruption and legalized bribery, they are fed up with career politicians getting obscenely rich on taxpayer money.

Americans want an outsider who will bring down the corrupt establishment in both parties.

That's why Trump, Cruz, and Sanders are getting so many votes.

Will any of them fix the mess? no one knows, but what we all know is that Hillary will only make it worse.

 

[Redfish]

would a one party government make you happy? Do you realize that you are wishing for a dictatorship with no checks and balances?

How you arrived to the above "conclusion" is beyond me........My contention is that after this election cycle, a SANER GOP will have to emerge to mitigate the party's heavy losses.....For more than 7 years, the GOP stance has been nothing but an obstructive, hate-filled party........Enough.

amazingly stupid. the obstructionists have been Reid and Obama. Reid refused to bring over 300 house passed bills to a vote in the senate, Obama has refused to compromise, or even discuss compromises, on anything. ACA was passed by dems only using reconciliation, a practice never before used for something so important. No discussion was allowed on the floor of either the house or senate. the vote was forced before anyone had time to read the bill. And you accuse the GOP of obstruction???? what planet are you posting from.

in your earlier post you were all excited about a dem president and dems taking over congress----------------a one party government. I merely asked if you had thought about the implications of what you were wishing for.

How many of the Democrats bills did Republicans allow through the Senate without 60 votes?

Why should Republican bills get through with 45?

That's not the point, fool. Reid would not even let house-passed bills come to the senate floor for discussion, much less for a vote. I think the real fear of the dems, is that some of them might actually pass the senate and force obozo to either sign or veto them.

 

[rightwinger]

Garland is anti 2nd amendment, he would have no chance of being confirmed. Why waste the time?

Garland was nominated by Obama to simply show the American voter just how out of step and anti-Constitution republican senators have become based on their Obama-hatred. Garland is a nearly "perfect" candidate and a bit too moderate for progressives.........In my opinion, Obama nominated him to drive in the last nail in the coffin of a GOP loss in the senate.

Republicans are making a deal with the devil in putting all their faith in an eventual Trump victory

1. What makes them think Trump will win?
2. If Trump were to win, what makes them think he would pick someone they like?

Trump is a symptom. A symptom that americans are fed up with the establishment and its promises that never happen. they are fed up with political corruption and legalized bribery, they are fed up with career politicians getting obscenely rich on taxpayer money.

Americans want an outsider who will bring down the corrupt establishment in both parties.

That's why Trump, Cruz, and Sanders are getting so many votes.

Will any of them fix the mess? no one knows, but what we all know is that Hillary will only make it worse.

Actually, Trump is a disease
He will crash and burn and bring down the GOP with him

The mad as hell Republicans are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face....they will get what they deserve

 

[nat4900]

2. If Trump were to win, what makes them think he would pick someone they like?

I may be wrong on this, but I actually think that Trump is a heck more "liberal" than even a Hillary Clinton

 

[rightwinger]

would a one party government make you happy? Do you realize that you are wishing for a dictatorship with no checks and balances?

How you arrived to the above "conclusion" is beyond me........My contention is that after this election cycle, a SANER GOP will have to emerge to mitigate the party's heavy losses.....For more than 7 years, the GOP stance has been nothing but an obstructive, hate-filled party........Enough.

amazingly stupid. the obstructionists have been Reid and Obama. Reid refused to bring over 300 house passed bills to a vote in the senate, Obama has refused to compromise, or even discuss compromises, on anything. ACA was passed by dems only using reconciliation, a practice never before used for something so important. No discussion was allowed on the floor of either the house or senate. the vote was forced before anyone had time to read the bill. And you accuse the GOP of obstruction???? what planet are you posting from.

in your earlier post you were all excited about a dem president and dems taking over congress----------------a one party government. I merely asked if you had thought about the implications of what you were wishing for.

How many of the Democrats bills did Republicans allow through the Senate without 60 votes?

Why should Republican bills get through with 45?

That's not the point, fool. Reid would not even let house-passed bills come to the senate floor for discussion, much less for a vote. I think the real fear of the dems, is that some of them might actually pass the senate and force obozo to either sign or veto them.

That is exactly the point asshole. Filibusters by 45 Republicans would not let Democratic bills reach the floor. Why should Reid allow Republican bills go to the floor when Republicans would not extend the same courtesy?

If Republicans wanted some of their bills to come to the floor, they could have traded for allowing Democratic bills to break filibuster

 

[Redfish]

Garland is anti 2nd amendment, he would have no chance of being confirmed. Why waste the time?

Garland was nominated by Obama to simply show the American voter just how out of step and anti-Constitution republican senators have become based on their Obama-hatred. Garland is a nearly "perfect" candidate and a bit too moderate for progressives.........In my opinion, Obama nominated him to drive in the last nail in the coffin of a GOP loss in the senate.

Republicans are making a deal with the devil in putting all their faith in an eventual Trump victory

1. What makes them think Trump will win?
2. If Trump were to win, what makes them think he would pick someone they like?

Trump is a symptom. A symptom that americans are fed up with the establishment and its promises that never happen. they are fed up with political corruption and legalized bribery, they are fed up with career politicians getting obscenely rich on taxpayer money.

Americans want an outsider who will bring down the corrupt establishment in both parties.

That's why Trump, Cruz, and Sanders are getting so many votes.

Will any of them fix the mess? no one knows, but what we all know is that Hillary will only make it worse.

Actually, Trump is a disease
He will crash and burn and bring down the GOP with him

The mad as hell Republicans are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face....they will get what they deserve

please insert 'Hillary" for trump, 'she' for he, and 'democrats' for republicans, then you have it correct.

Hillary Clinton is the worst possible person to put in the whitehouse. A liar, a criminal, a lifelong bitch, a disingenuous pretend senator and the worst SecState in history.

Plus, she is old and is showing signs of dementia and possible alzheimers. Her own staff has said that she gets confused easily and loses her temper over minor things. Do you really want a crazy old bitch running the country?

 

[Redfish]

2. If Trump were to win, what makes them think he would pick someone they like?

I may be wrong on this, but I actually think that Trump is a heck more "liberal" than even a Hillary Clinton

not even close.

 

[nat4900]

In 2010 and 2014 the GOP candidates ran on a platform of :jobs, jobs, jobs"....Now, how many job-creation bills have made it to Obama's desk?

 

[Redfish]

would a one party government make you happy? Do you realize that you are wishing for a dictatorship with no checks and balances?

How you arrived to the above "conclusion" is beyond me........My contention is that after this election cycle, a SANER GOP will have to emerge to mitigate the party's heavy losses.....For more than 7 years, the GOP stance has been nothing but an obstructive, hate-filled party........Enough.

amazingly stupid. the obstructionists have been Reid and Obama. Reid refused to bring over 300 house passed bills to a vote in the senate, Obama has refused to compromise, or even discuss compromises, on anything. ACA was passed by dems only using reconciliation, a practice never before used for something so important. No discussion was allowed on the floor of either the house or senate. the vote was forced before anyone had time to read the bill. And you accuse the GOP of obstruction???? what planet are you posting from.

in your earlier post you were all excited about a dem president and dems taking over congress----------------a one party government. I merely asked if you had thought about the implications of what you were wishing for.

How many of the Democrats bills did Republicans allow through the Senate without 60 votes?

Why should Republican bills get through with 45?

That's not the point, fool. Reid would not even let house-passed bills come to the senate floor for discussion, much less for a vote. I think the real fear of the dems, is that some of them might actually pass the senate and force obozo to either sign or veto them.

That is exactly the point asshole. Filibusters by 45 Republicans would not let Democratic bills reach the floor. Why should Reid allow Republican bills go to the floor when Republicans would not extend the same courtesy?

If Republicans wanted some of their bills to come to the floor, they could have traded for allowing Democratic bills to break filibuster

that's really funny. please give us a list of the house-passed bills filibustered by the republicans in the senate. You do understand that bills start in the house don't you?

 

[Redfish]

In 2010 and 2014 the GOP candidates ran on a platform of :jobs, jobs, jobs"....Now, how many job-creation bills have made it to Obama's desk?

ask Reid. he blocked them from ever getting a vote in the senate.

 

[nat4900]

please insert 'Hillary" for trump, 'she' for he, and 'democrats' for republicans, then you have it correct.

Hillary Clinton is the worst possible person to put in the whitehouse. A liar, a criminal, a lifelong bitch, a disingenuous pretend senator and the worst SecState in history.

Plus, she is old and is showing signs of dementia and possible alzheimers. Her own staff has said that she gets confused easily and loses her temper over minor things. Do you really want a crazy old bitch running the country?

Accuse Clinton of being a bit too selfish and money hungry....BUT the rest of the above is simply FOX-inspired; underestimate her capabilities andpolitical savvy at your own peril.

 

[rightwinger]

Garland is anti 2nd amendment, he would have no chance of being confirmed. Why waste the time?

Garland was nominated by Obama to simply show the American voter just how out of step and anti-Constitution republican senators have become based on their Obama-hatred. Garland is a nearly "perfect" candidate and a bit too moderate for progressives.........In my opinion, Obama nominated him to drive in the last nail in the coffin of a GOP loss in the senate.

Republicans are making a deal with the devil in putting all their faith in an eventual Trump victory

1. What makes them think Trump will win?
2. If Trump were to win, what makes them think he would pick someone they like?

Trump is a symptom. A symptom that americans are fed up with the establishment and its promises that never happen. they are fed up with political corruption and legalized bribery, they are fed up with career politicians getting obscenely rich on taxpayer money.

Americans want an outsider who will bring down the corrupt establishment in both parties.

That's why Trump, Cruz, and Sanders are getting so many votes.

Will any of them fix the mess? no one knows, but what we all know is that Hillary will only make it worse.

Actually, Trump is a disease
He will crash and burn and bring down the GOP with him

The mad as hell Republicans are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face....they will get what they deserve

please insert 'Hillary" for trump, 'she' for he, and 'democrats' for republicans, then you have it correct.

Hillary Clinton is the worst possible person to put in the whitehouse. A liar, a criminal, a lifelong bitch, a disingenuous pretend senator and the worst SecState in history.

Plus, she is old and is showing signs of dementia and possible alzheimers. Her own staff has said that she gets confused easily and loses her temper over minor things. Do you really want a crazy old bitch running the country?

Hillary will do what liberal voters want her to do. Defend obamacare, fight for better wages and benefits, push for immigration reform

Hillary is not a protest vote...Trump is

 

[rightwinger]

How you arrived to the above "conclusion" is beyond me........My contention is that after this election cycle, a SANER GOP will have to emerge to mitigate the party's heavy losses.....For more than 7 years, the GOP stance has been nothing but an obstructive, hate-filled party........Enough.

amazingly stupid. the obstructionists have been Reid and Obama. Reid refused to bring over 300 house passed bills to a vote in the senate, Obama has refused to compromise, or even discuss compromises, on anything. ACA was passed by dems only using reconciliation, a practice never before used for something so important. No discussion was allowed on the floor of either the house or senate. the vote was forced before anyone had time to read the bill. And you accuse the GOP of obstruction???? what planet are you posting from.

in your earlier post you were all excited about a dem president and dems taking over congress----------------a one party government. I merely asked if you had thought about the implications of what you were wishing for.

How many of the Democrats bills did Republicans allow through the Senate without 60 votes?

Why should Republican bills get through with 45?

That's not the point, fool. Reid would not even let house-passed bills come to the senate floor for discussion, much less for a vote. I think the real fear of the dems, is that some of them might actually pass the senate and force obozo to either sign or veto them.

That is exactly the point asshole. Filibusters by 45 Republicans would not let Democratic bills reach the floor. Why should Reid allow Republican bills go to the floor when Republicans would not extend the same courtesy?

If Republicans wanted some of their bills to come to the floor, they could have traded for allowing Democratic bills to break filibuster

that's really funny. please give us a list of the house-passed bills filibustered by the republicans in the senate. You do understand that bills start in the house don't you?

That's what is so convenient about today's use of filibuster.....you never have to actually vote. Bills die if they do not have 60 votes.
Democratic bills never reached the floor....same as Republicans

 

[kaz]

Awww, poor little algore was not allowed to win by cheating--------tough shit.

FACT: Al Gore received more popular votes — about 540,000 more ----than Mr. Bush nationally.

Wow, Al Gore ran for the popular vote? Really? He's dumber than I thought. He didn't know how we elect Presidents in this country and he wanted to be President. LOL, what a dumb ass. As for me, I voted for the only one I'd have wanted to be President in that election. Harry Browne

so you wasted your vote, interesting.

Wasting my vote would have been picking between two people I did not want to be President

you voted for someone with no chance of winning rather voting against Obama, YOU wasted your vote.

You aren't processing that I am not a Republican, you don't own my vote. BTW, Obama wasn't a candidate in 2000 ... Frankly if I had that vote to do over and didn't vote for Browne, I'd have voted for Gore. W was worse because he got his way where Gore wouldn't