Massage Adagio

And now Rubio is out

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
Hillary Clinton will be elected with an expectation that racial relations will improve. Especially since she will win against Donald Trump who is completely oblivious to the problem of race in the USA. Racial relations will not improve, if anything they will deteriorate further. Hillary Clinton is a "Globalist" which means more trade agreements with the "third world" and a continued transfer of jobs by International Corporations. Racial relations cannot improve until there are jobs for the majority of Americans and the "1%" is forced to become the "5%" at the very least. That is not going to happen when the candidate draws the majority of her funding from the "1%".

Hillary Clinton will also bring the USA into at least one "UN War", that is a war that has no relationship to the needs or wants of the USA but is entirely because the Globalists and UN think that they must "right a wrong". Because that war will be in Muslim held nations, there will be no possibility of the US winning a "Victory".

There is a strong possibility of Russia and China quietly supporting the anti UN side with weapons, money and political cover.

Because Donald Trump has "broken" the nomination process of the Republican party, the reorganized Republican party will most likely nominate their best candidate since Eisenhower. People forget that Eisenhower had 57.4% of the popular vote and 457 Electoral Votes. His Vice President (Richard Nixon) won in 1972 with 60.7% of the popular vote and 520 Electoral Votes.

Good Presidents tend to have coat tails that their Vice-President ride into office with. The same thing happened with Ronald Reagan who won the 1984 election with 58.8% of the popular vote and 525 Electoral Votes. That set up his Vice-President Bush 41 to win 53.4% of the popular vote and 426 Electoral Votes.

Lyndon Johnson's Vice President Herbert Humphrey didn't go on to be President, Bill Clinton's Vice President Al Gore didn't go on to be President and Barack Obama's Vice President won't be going on to be President. The only reason that Hillary Clinton will win is that the Republicans are so devoid of talent that there isn't an alternative. Elected Presidents are always a "Centralist" in their time. That's the way that they get the voters that vote Democrat normally, but will vote for a "Centralist" Republican.

ps Al Gore sole declared asset in 1976 was a mortgaged house. He's worth over 300 million after his sacrifices to public service. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton declared a worth of 250,000, They are worth at least 55 million.

That's the reason Politicians run for office. There's a lot of money in those terrible sacrifices to public service.
Trump has already made it clear that he is going to bomb everyone and their dog, so if he becomes president there will be at least one war. Same deal with the other Republicans, because they have to prove that they have "balls" before their base. Even if there is no real reason to fight, they will fight.

Hillary Clinton is no liberal when it comes to foreign policy. She is well known as a hawk on that front, so suggesting that she will fight some war "because the Globalists and UN think that they must "right a wrong"" is nonsense. She will probably be tough on foreign policy and whatever military policy she enacts will be driven primarily by US interests, not someone else's. The only presidents in recent times who have gone to war to "right a wrong" have been Republicans, not Democrats.

Retired presidents make a lot of money because they are celebrities, and like all celebrities they can trade on their name for speaking engagements, board appointments, book rights and the like. Just because they are politicians doesn't mean that the rules that apply to everyone else don't somehow apply to them. If you are famous, provided that you are smart, you are probably going to become rich as well. Politicians are no exception.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
Trump has already made it clear that he is going to bomb everyone and their dog, so if he becomes president there will be at least one war. Same deal with the other Republicans, because they have to prove that they have "balls" before their base. Even if there is no real reason to fight, they will fight.

Hillary Clinton is no liberal when it comes to foreign policy. She is well known as a hawk on that front, so suggesting that she will fight some war "because the Globalists and UN think that they must "right a wrong"" is nonsense. She will probably be tough on foreign policy and whatever military policy she enacts will be driven primarily by US interests, not someone else's. The only presidents in recent times who have gone to war to "right a wrong" have been Republicans, not Democrats.

Retired presidents make a lot of money because they are celebrities, and like all celebrities they can trade on their name for speaking engagements, board appointments, book rights and the like. Just because they are politicians doesn't mean that the rules that apply to everyone else don't somehow apply to them. If you are famous, provided that you are smart, you are probably going to become rich as well. Politicians are no exception.
Somalia (1993) and Bosnia (1993) had some advantage for the USA? We know who's wife flew into Srebrenica with "rockets to the right and anti-aircraft fire to the left" to land at a peaceful airport and collect some flowers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton Both those involvements were "UN Wars" of no benefit to the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Operation_in_Somalia_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_intervention_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina


I'm not even a tiny bit worried about Trump getting into anything more than a war of words. 2 reasons:
1. As the Fonz told Richie "if you want people to believe your threat, you have to actually have hit someone" Trump is a talker, not a doer
2. There is precisely no chance that Trump can win against Clinton. The Clintons talk, they also do. As anyone that has butted heads with them will testify. Trump has never come up against anyone that fights the way the Clintons do.
 
Last edited:

bcneil

I am from BC
Aug 24, 2007
2,089
0
36
The republicans are having a lot of problems. Trump or Cruz will lose to Clinton regardless.
So a lot of republicans think there is no harm getting rid of Trump.
But if they do some brokered convention, it will also hurt their voter turnout.
Which will cost them senate and house seats.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
The republicans are having a lot of problems. Trump or Cruz will lose to Clinton regardless.
So a lot of republicans think there is no harm getting rid of Trump.
But if they do some brokered convention, it will also hurt their voter turnout.
Which will cost them senate and house seats.
If the Republicans lose House and Senate seats, it won't break my heart. The current actions of the Republican old guard can only lead to a Democrat victory. If they manage to broker the Convention and nominate Cruz, Trump will run anyway with his own candidates for House and Senate. If the Tea Party faction losses their control of the House, the USA will be in better shape.

With Hillary Clinton, one thing we all can be sure of - she won't be at a loss of what to do with a Super Majority the way Obama was. Obama was given a Super Majority (Administration, House and Senate) in 2008 and pissed it away. Hillary will castrate anyone that impedes her use of a Super Majority. There will be a lot of whining and complaining about what she does, but she won't be doing nothing.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
Somalia (1993) and Bosnia (1993) had some advantage for the USA? We know who's wife flew into Srebrenica with "rockets to the right and anti-aircraft fire to the left" to land at a peaceful airport and collect some flowers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton Both those involvements were "UN Wars" of no benefit to the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Operation_in_Somalia_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_intervention_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina


I'm not even a tiny bit worried about Trump getting into anything more than a war of words. 2 reasons:
1. As the Fonz told Richie "if you want people to believe your threat, you have to actually have hit someone" Trump is a talker, not a doer
2. There is precisely no chance that Trump can win against Clinton. The Clintons talk, they also do. As anyone that has butted heads with them will testify. Trump has never come up against anyone that fights the way the Clintons do.
Both of those commitments were made under Bush's presidency, not Clinton's. The US just lived up to the commitments for involvement that a Republican president had made.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
If the Republicans lose House and Senate seats, it won't break my heart. The current actions of the Republican old guard can only lead to a Democrat victory. If they manage to broker the Convention and nominate Cruz, Trump will run anyway with his own candidates for House and Senate. If the Tea Party faction losses their control of the House, the USA will be in better shape.

With Hillary Clinton, one thing we all can be sure of - she won't be at a loss of what to do with a Super Majority the way Obama was. Obama was given a Super Majority (Administration, House and Senate) in 2008 and pissed it away. Hillary will castrate anyone that impedes her use of a Super Majority. There will be a lot of whining and complaining about what she does, but she won't be doing nothing.
A supermajority does not really help you much. In order to get a partisan legislative agenda passed without a protracted battle you need 60 seats in the senate, and by the time that happened the Democrats had lost the house.

The president does not create legislation anyway, that is not the function of the office. The presidency runs the administration of the government. Legislation is proposed and made by congress and the senate - the only role of the president in that process is to sign the legislation into law (or veto it) once passed. The power of the president is limited to the sorts of things that can be executed by executive order.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
Both of those commitments were made under Bush's presidency, not Clinton's. The US just lived up to the commitments for involvement that a Republican president had made.
ROTFLMAO Really?
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
A supermajority does not really help you much. In order to get a partisan legislative agenda passed without a protracted battle you need 60 seats in the senate, and by the time that happened the Democrats had lost the house.

The president does not create legislation anyway, that is not the function of the office. The presidency runs the administration of the government. Legislation is proposed and made by congress and the senate - the only role of the president in that process is to sign the legislation into law (or veto it) once passed. The power of the president is limited to the sorts of things that can be executed by executive order.
One has to wonder if you know any history at all.

Obamacare or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act was proposed by the Administration. In fact, the first speech that Barack Obama made as President to a joint session of Congress was on Obamacare.

Healthcare reform was a major topic of discussion during the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. As the race narrowed, attention focused on the plans presented by the two leading candidates, Hillary Clinton and the eventual nominee, Barack Obama. Each candidate proposed a plan to cover the approximately 45 million Americans estimated to not have health insurance at some point each year. Clinton's plan would have required all Americans to obtain coverage (in effect, an individual mandate), while Obama's provided a subsidy but rejected the use of an individual mandate.[83][84] During the general election, Obama said that fixing healthcare would be one of his top four priorities if he won the presidency.[85]
After his inauguration, Obama announced to a joint session of Congress in February 2009 his intent to work with Congress to construct a plan for healthcare reform.[86][87] By July, a series of bills were approved by committees within the House of Representatives.[88] On the Senate side, from June to September, the Senate Finance Committee held a series of 31 meetings to develop a healthcare reform bill. This group — in particular, Democrats Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, and Kent Conrad, and Republicans Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe — met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed, in conjunction with the other committees, became the foundation of the Senate's healthcare reform bill.[89][90][91]

With universal healthcare as one of the stated goals of the Obama administration, congressional Democrats and health policy experts like Jonathan Gruber and David Cutler argued that guaranteed issue would require both community rating and an individual mandate to ensure that adverse selection and/or "free riding" would not result in an insurance "death spiral";[92] they convinced Obama that this was necessary, and persuaded him to accept congressional proposals that included a mandate.[93] This approach was taken because the president and congressional leaders had concluded that more progressive plans, such as the (single-payer) Medicare for All act, could not obtain filibuster-proof support in the Senate. By deliberately drawing on bipartisan ideas — the same basic outline was supported by former Senate majority leaders Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Tom Daschle and George J. Mitchell—the bill's drafters hoped to increase the chances of garnering the necessary votes for passage.[94][95]
House elected November 4 2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2008
Senate elected November 4 2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2008

What really was the problem was the two Independent "Democrats" that were saying "My way or the Highway"
Going into the 2008 election, the Senate consisted of 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and two independents (Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut) who caucused with the Democrats, giving the Democratic caucus a 51-49 majority.[1]
Interesting. One running mate on the Presidential ticket in 2000 and the person that is currently running against Hillary in 2016. The Democrats rid themselves of Joe Lieberman in the November 4 2012 election. Want to take bets on Bernie Sanders getting a another Democrat nomination? He was a member of the House, sitting as an Independent. In the 2006 election, he ran for the Senate as an Independent. After the Democrats refused Joe Lieberman a nomination, he promised to be a good boy if he got a Democrat nomination in 2012. Clearly his desire for a Democrat nomination was so he could run for the top job, equally clearly, the Democrat leadership knows that they are dumbasses who got sucker punched and Bernie won't be running as a Democrat in 2018.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
One has to wonder if you know any history at all.

Obamacare or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act was proposed by the Administration. In fact, the first speech that Barack Obama made as President to a joint session of Congress was on Obamacare.




House elected November 4 2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2008
Senate elected November 4 2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2008

What really was the problem was the two Independent "Democrats" that were saying "My way or the Highway"


Interesting. One running mate on the Presidential ticket in 2000 and the person that is currently running against Hillary in 2016. The Democrats rid themselves of Joe Lieberman in the November 4 2012 election. Want to take bets on Bernie Sanders getting a another Democrat nomination? He was a member of the House, sitting as an Independent. In the 2006 election, he ran for the Senate as an Independent. After the Democrats refused Joe Lieberman a nomination, he promised to be a good boy if he got a Democrat nomination in 2012. Clearly his desire for a Democrat nomination was so he could run for the top job, equally clearly, the Democrat leadership knows that they are dumbasses who got sucker punched and Bernie won't be running as a Democrat in 2018.
The president does NOT propose legislation. He might ask allies to propose it, but he/she does not do it themselves. That is NOT the constitutional function of the president. The President is the executive branch of government, while congress and the senate are the legislative branch. Congress enacts laws, while the President carries them out.

And in any case, health care reform had been a priority for Democrats for many years, long before Obama became president. The fact that it moved through congress at that time was due to the fact that the Democrats took control of congress that year, not because Obama "proposed" it. The reason he "proposed" it was precisely BECAUSE it was a Democrat priority. It was not a surprise to congress and they would have gone ahead and done it anyway no matter what his opinion on the matter might have been.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
The president does NOT propose legislation. He might ask allies to propose it, but he/she does not do it themselves. That is NOT the constitutional function of the president. The President is the executive branch of government, while congress and the senate are the legislative branch. Congress enacts laws, while the President carries them out.

And in any case, health care reform had been a priority for Democrats for many years, long before Obama became president. The fact that it moved through congress at that time was due to the fact that the Democrats took control of congress that year, not because Obama "proposed" it. The reason he "proposed" it was precisely BECAUSE it was a Democrat priority. It was not a surprise to congress and they would have gone ahead and done it anyway no matter what his opinion on the matter might have been.
Bullshit.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-joint-session-congress-health-care

Remarks by the President to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release September 9, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS
ON HEALTH CARE
U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.
8:16 P.M. EDT
...The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals. It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance for those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. (Applause.) It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge -- not just government, not just insurance companies, but everybody including employers and individuals. And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from senators and congressmen, from Democrats and Republicans -- and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.
Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan. First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. (Applause.) Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.
What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. (Applause.) As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most. (Applause.) They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. (Applause.) We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. (Applause.) And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies -- (applause) -- because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives. (Applause.)
Now, that's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan -- more security and more stability.
Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. (Applause.) If you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage. We'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange -- a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we give ourselves. (Applause.)
Now, for those individuals and small businesses who still can't afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we'll provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have preexisting medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. (Applause.) This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should all embrace it. (Applause.)
Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those -- especially the young and the healthy -- who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek -- especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions -- just can't be achieved.
And that's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. (Applause.) Likewise -- likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. (Applause.) But we can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part. ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

... The Senate began work on its own proposals while the House was still working on the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Instead, the Senate took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[106] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[107] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their healthcare reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[108] The bill as amended would ultimately incorporate elements of proposals that were reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees. With the Republican minority in the Senate vowing to filibuster any bill they did not support, requiring a cloture vote to end debate, 60 votes would be necessary to get passage in the Senate.[109] At the start of the 111th Congress, Democrats had only 58 votes; the Senate seat in Minnesota ultimately won by Al Franken was still undergoing a recount, and Arlen Specter was still a Republican.

To reach 60 votes, negotiations were undertaken to satisfy the demands of moderate Democrats, and to try to bring several Republican senators aboard; particular attention was given to Bob Bennett, Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe. ...

... After the Finance Committee vote, negotiations turned to the demands of moderate Democrats, whose votes would be necessary to break the anticipated Republican filibuster. Majority leader Harry Reid focused on satisfying the Democratic caucus's centrist members until the holdouts came down to Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucused with Democrats, and Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat, representing Nebraska. Lieberman, despite intense negotiations with Reid in search of a compromise, refused to support a public option, agreeing to vote for the bill only if the provision were not included,[92][110] although it had majority support in Congress. His demand was met.[111] There was debate among the bill's supporters over the importance of the public option,[112] although the vast majority of supporters concluded it was a minor part of the reform overall,[110] and Congressional Democrats' fight for it won various concessions, including conditional waivers allowing states to set up state-based public options such as Vermont's Green Mountain Care.[111][113]

With every other Democrat now in favor and every Republican now opposed, the White House and Reid moved on to addressing Nelson's concerns in order to win filibuster-proof support for the bill;[114] they had by this point concluded "it was a waste of time dealing with [Snowe]"[115] because, after her vote for the draft bill in the Finance Committee, she had come under intense pressure from the Republican Senate leadership.[116] After a final 13-hour negotiation, Nelson's support for the bill was won with two concessions: a compromise on abortion, modifying the language of the bill "to give states the right to prohibit coverage of abortion within their own insurance exchanges", which would require consumers to pay for the procedure out of pocket if the state so decided; and an amendment to offer a higher rate of Medicaid reimbursement for Nebraska.[87][117] The latter half of the compromise was derisively called the "Cornhusker Kickback"[118] and was repealed in the subsequent reconciliation amendment bill.

On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote).[119] The bill was endorsed by the AMA and AARP.[120]

Several weeks later, on January 19, 2010, Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown was elected to the Senate in a special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy, having campaigned on giving the Republican minority the 41st vote needed to sustain Republican filibusters.[87][121][122] The special election had become significant to the reform debate because of its effects on the legislative process. The first was psychological: the symbolic importance of losing Kennedy's traditionally Democratic Massachusetts seat made many Congressional Democrats concerned about the political cost of passing a bill.[123][124] The second effect was more practical: the loss of the Democratic supermajority complicated reform proponents' legislative strategy.[124] ...
 

brixx

Member
Jan 27, 2016
31
12
8
Trump wont pick Christie or Carson as VP just because they've endorsed him.. Christie could be secretary of state and Carson would surely be surgeon general, considering his only line of expertise os medical. Listen tho, Trump is fucking dangerous, and the Republican field is riddled with maniacs. Hillary is a war hawk and lies religeously. Sanders is the only option for a better future and would be only the second good president in history, the first and so far only being FDR.
Republicans are idiots.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
Trump wont pick Christie or Carson as VP just because they've endorsed him.. Christie could be secretary of state and Carson would surely be surgeon general, considering his only line of expertise os medical. Listen tho, Trump is fucking dangerous, and the Republican field is riddled with maniacs. Hillary is a war hawk and lies religeously. Sanders is the only option for a better future and would be only the second good president in history, the first and so far only being FDR.
Republicans are idiots.
FDR was elected in a different time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt
The Democrat party of that time was very much the same as the "Country Club Republicans" that Ronald Reagan lead. FDR was profoundly crippled by Polio and could only stand or walk very short distances - otherwise he was wheelchair bound. He also was conducting a very long term relationship with Lucy Mercer. The Press in later times would have made it impossible for FDR to be elected.

Roosevelt tried to keep his campaign promise by cutting the federal budget — including a reduction in military spending from $752 million in 1932 to $531 million in 1934 and a 40% cut in spending on veterans' benefits — by removing 500,000 veterans and widows from the pension rolls and reducing benefits for the remainder, as well as cutting the salaries of federal employees and reducing spending on research and education. But, the veterans were well organized and strongly protested; most benefits were restored or increased by 1934, but FDR vetoed their efforts to get a cash bonus.[148] The benefit cuts also did not last. In June 1933, Roosevelt restored $50 million in pension payments, and Congress added another $46 million more.[149] Veterans groups such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars won their campaign to transform their benefits from payments due in 1945 to immediate cash when Congress overrode the President's veto and passed the Bonus Act in January 1936.[150][151] It pumped sums equal to 2% of the GDP into the consumer economy and had a major stimulus effect.[152]
If FDR's actions and policies sound very similar to Stephen Harper's - that's because they were.

The Democrat party changed under Lyndon Johnson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson

Johnson designed the "Great Society" legislation upholding civil rights, public broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, aid to education, the arts, urban and rural development, public services, and his "War on Poverty". Assisted in part by a growing economy, the War on Poverty helped millions of Americans rise above the poverty line during Johnson's presidency.[2] Civil rights bills signed by Johnson banned racial discrimination in public facilities, interstate commerce, the workplace, and housing; and the Voting Rights Act banned certain requirements in southern states used to disenfranchise African Americans. With the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the country's immigration system was reformed and all racial origin quotas were removed (replaced by national origin quotas). Johnson was renowned for his domineering, sometimes abrasive, personality and the "Johnson treatment"—his aggressive coercion of powerful politicians to advance legislation.

Johnson faced further troubles when summer riots broke out in most major cities after 1965, and crime rates soared, as his opponents raised demands for "law and order" policies. While he began his presidency with widespread approval, support for Johnson declined as the public became upset with both the war and the growing violence at home. In 1968, the Democratic Party factionalized as antiwar elements denounced Johnson; he ended his bid for renomination after a disappointing finish in the New Hampshire primary. Republican Richard Nixon was elected to succeed him, as the New Deal coalition that had dominated presidential politics for 36 years collapsed. After he left office in January 1969, Johnson returned to his Texas ranch where he died of a heart attack at age 64 on January 22, 1973.

Historians argue that Johnson's presidency marked the peak of modern liberalism in the United States after the New Deal era. Johnson is ranked favorably by some historians because of his domestic policies and the passage of many major laws, affecting civil rights, gun control, wilderness preservation, and Social Security.[5][6]

Passing the civil rights bill in the house required getting it through the Rules Committee, which had been holding it up in an attempt to kill it. Johnson decided on a campaign to use a discharge petition to force it onto the house floor.[86] Facing a growing threat that they would be bypassed, the House rules committee approved the bill and moved it to the floor of the full house, which passed it shortly thereafter by a vote of 290–110.[87] In the Senate, since the tax bill had passed three days earlier, the anti-civil-rights senators were left with the filibuster as their only remaining tool. Overcoming the filibuster required the support of over twenty Republicans, who were growing less supportive due to the fact that their party was about to nominate for president a candidate who opposed the bill.[88] According to Caro, it was ultimately Johnson's ability to convince Republican leader Everett Dirksen to support the bill that amassed the necessary Republican votes to overcome the filibuster in March 1964; after 75 hours of debate, the bill passed the senate by a vote of 71–29.[89][90] Johnson signed the fortified Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law on July 2.[90] Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party.[91]
Lyndon Johnson was well aware that he had lost the White South with his "Great Society" That is when the Democrat Party became the party of the Urban coasts and the Republicans were safe in the South and in Rural districts.

Presidents can choose to do nothing because of the danger of a filibuster - or - they can do what LBJ did and force the issue on the floor where the politicians have to face the light of day. Many of the people that voted for his bills, were against them. However, they knew that their political career would be over if they publicly voted against the bills.
 
Last edited:

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
Bullshit. You are not getting it - you don't know how the US system works. No president has EVER introduced a bill into congress because that is not their function. Bills are introduced by members of congress and the senate, not the president. The president simply does not have the power to introduce any legislation at all. The only power they have with respect to legislation is that they can veto it, but even that can be overridden with sufficient votes in the Senate.

The function of the president is to administer the day to day activities of government, and to oversee foreign policy. Legislation is purely the domain of congress and the senate. That is THEIR constitutional role.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
Bullshit. You are not getting it - you don't know how the US system works. No president has EVER introduced a bill into congress because that is not their function. Bills are introduced by members of congress and the senate, not the president. The president simply does not have the power to introduce any legislation at all. The only power they have with respect to legislation is that they can veto it, but even that can be overridden with sufficient votes in the Senate.

The function of the president is to administer the day to day activities of government, and to oversee foreign policy. Legislation is purely the domain of congress and the senate. That is THEIR constitutional role.
By the Constitution, the House writes the Bills, presents them to the Senate who votes them up or down and the Bills that are voted up are presented to the President who signs the ones the President approves and vetoes the ones the President doesn't approve.

By the way it actually works:

Someone, be it a Member of the House, the Senate or the Administration finds sponsors in the House to present a Bill to the House. The House Committees consider the Bill and amend the crap out of it to include all of the tit for tat prices for support. The Bill approved by House Committee goes to the House and is further amended to include all of the further tit for tat prices for support. When the House finally votes the Bill up, the Bill goes to the Senate.

The Senate sends the Bill to Senate Committee where it is considered and amended to include all of the tit for tat prices for support. The Bill approved by Senate Committee goes to the Senate which amends the crap out of it to include all of the tit for tat prices for support. When the Senate realizes that the Bill they have approved bears no relationship to the Bill the House gave them, they send it back to the House for "reconciliation". The House sends the Bill back to House Committee and the circle repeats. The linked Wikipedia article illuminates the negotiations and "reconciliation" necessary to get Obamacare into law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reconciliation_Act_of_2010

If the Administration really, really wants the Bill to make it through House and Senate and onto the President's desk - they "talk" to the House and Senate leaders. The conversation is never limited to the Bill the Administration wants passed through Congress. Because no Bill is ever law until the President signs it and the President has hundreds of Bills stacked on the President's desk.

And this is why you are full of shit.

When Lyndon Johnson wanted the Civil Rights laws passed, he made it clear that nobody was getting any Bill signed by him until the Civil Rights laws were on his desk. Barack Obama could have called members of the House and Senate in to his office and done the same thing. He chose to "keep his hands clean" and owe no future political debts by having Reid handle it.

Both Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama wrote the Bills that were offered to the House and Senate. The historical record is clear on that. Neither effort started in the House.

It might be argued that Barack Obama had little choice. He couldn't have the Senate completely amend a donor House Bill as Lyndon Johnson did because the problem(s) were Senators. Untrue. I'm sure that Joe Lieberman had some pork he wanted to deliver to Connecticut. However, Barack Obama didn't want to get his hands dirty and Harry Reid wasn't about to do laundry for Barack Obama for free.

As a result of Barack Obama "keeping his hands clean" The Republicans currently have control of both the House and Senate. House Democrats 188, House Republicans 246. Senate Democrats 44, Senate Republicans 54, Independents 2. Why? Because the "Hope and Change" that people wanted can't be found in an Obama Administration.

It's open season for the cops to kill blacks on the streets down there, official black unemployment is 28.5% (white unemployment is 15.3%) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
No Hope, No Change - not worth voting for, so they didn't.
 
Last edited:

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
So you agree that you are full of BS and that the President does not introduce bills to congress. Good.

Both major Democratic candidates were proposing health care reform during the presidential primary season proving that it was a priority for the PARTY, not simply Obama. The fact that health care was a major issue for the party to address in 2008 seems to have flown over your head. When the Democrats took control of the house in 2009 it was obvious that some sort of health care bill was going to be enacted as a result of the 2008 election campaign. Obama just went for the ride, like he does with every other major question that is current at the time.

Nancy Pelosi was far more influential in getting the bill passed than Obama was.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,187
0
0
It's looking like Clinton & Trump have won Arizona today, Utah and Idaho still uncounted. Top link is Fox news for today's results. Second link is NY Times for the primaries to date.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-primary-caucus-results

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...moduleDetail=undefined&pgtype=Multimedia&_r=0

edit Wed March 22 - Neither Clinton or Trump won in Utah or Idaho. Clinton has to be getting a little concerned that it's going to be a repeat of 2008, where a one term Senator beats her at the convention.
 
Last edited:
Vancouver Escorts