Democratics being obstructionist.

[Cato]

Exactly. How can we know the reasons? I assume Republicans ideologically disagree with Obama and that was their motive. I could be wrong but to ascribe positive motives to your side and negative to the other seems politically naive.

When a party claims to support our veterans and improve their treatment by the government, yet votes against a Dem-sponsored bill that would have provided jobs for 20,000 vets purely because it would have been seen as a victory of the Democrats. Mitch even admitted back in 2010 that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." That's how you know.

The vet bill argument is complete nonsense, it was purely a political move timed just before the 2012 elections knowing they didn't have support for passage. Another reason this charge is ridiculous is that the Congress passed and Obama signed the Vow to Hire Heroes bill the year before. It also ignores the half dozen or so federally sponsored vet job programs already in existence.

[Rev. Rye]

It's one thing to stop the opposition's agenda because they disagree. It's another to stop the opposition's agenda purely because it's the opposition's, and then blame the opposition for it. If the Dems do the latter I will be just as upset.

Exactly. The Republican obstructionism we've been dealing with for the past few years would have been a lot less disturbing if they were just limiting it to things they thought were going too far with. However, the Republicans came alarmingly close in the past few years to literally bankrupting the country TWICE with the debt ceiling crises and have spent an unprecedented amount of time refusing to even advise and consent on Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court, and apparently, if Hilary had won, were willing to keep it going until either they elected sufficiently right-wing judges or everyone on the Supreme Court died off.

If Democratic obstruction ever reaches that point, I will be royally pissed.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If US democrats want to obstruct US republicans, it seems only fair to point out that if you punch someone in the face, don't be surprised if they decide to punch back.

Boru

Oh bullshit blame McConnell and the GOP the day after Obama's  first election. And again Dems are NOT the ones who want to turn back the clock on minority and gay and women's rights nor did we start the age of deregulation 

DAMNED right we will get in their way

You misunderstand me. I'll try again. If the democrats are going to attempt to obstruct the republican agenda, the republicans would do well to remind themselves they're the ones who spend eight years being obstructionists, even opposing Obama on issues which were originally republican ideas.

Boru

[abaris]

That's part of the uniting, give them a reason to go to the polls more than just 'not the other guy/gal'.

That still led to a 75 percent turnout in my country as of lately. For me it was a positive election because I wanted one of the candidates to win. For many, according to exit polls, it was just a negative selection of preventing the other from winning.

What I mean is, if you don't bother to move your ass to the polls, you throw what little influence you have into the shitter. And it stands to reason that you lose the right to complain over the outcome.

[Thumpalumpacus]

One of the things I've heard on here a lot in the last few years is complaints that republicans in congress have been obstructionists to president Obama and the things he's wanted to get done. I wonder now that the collapse of the Republican Party didn't occur as predicted and they now control the house, senate and Trump is president, do you want the Democratic Party to work with Trump on his agenda or have you taken a different view of Obstruction?

I don't think this election cycle will be doing anything to prolong the life of the Republican Party. With both houses of Congress and the Oval Office, they will not have any excuse for the things done -- or not done.

[Divinity]

Honestly I'd love to see Dems treat Trump the way they treated Obama.  Just so they get a taste of their own medicine.  But it won't happen.  Trump will get his SCOTUS pick.  Personally I think they should fillibuster all SCOTUS Picks for the next 4 years--under the reasoning that Republicans refused to allow Obama to make an appointment, so they're refusing Trump. After all, who wants to reward their obstructionism? It sets a bad precedent.

[CapnAwesome]

That's part of the uniting, give them a reason to go to the polls more than just 'not the other guy/gal'.

That still led to a 75 percent turnout in my country as of lately. For me it was a positive election because I wanted one of the candidates to win. For many, according to exit polls, it was just a negative selection of preventing the other from winning.

What I mean is, if you don't bother to move your ass to the polls, you throw what little influence you have into the shitter. And it stands to reason that you lose the right to complain over the outcome.

The old 'if you don't vote, you can't complain' line. Totally silly. You can have political influence and be affected by negative political choices whether or not you vote one way or another. I have the right to complain because I have free speech.

[vorlon13]

anything the Trumpers want to do that is likely to succeed needs to be impeded at every step of the way

anything the Trumpers want to do that is likely to be a fiasco needs to sail through congress as fast as possible


That will show those fucks !!!



(the voters)

nothing in the interim has changed my mind . . .

[Minimalist]

Actually things have gotten much worse in the interim.