U.S. Presidential Election page 5 (locked)

1843 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Originally posted by jhco50:

The House of Representatives is the part of the government where all spending bills originate. The first two years of the Obama presidency, he had control of both houses and they didn’t pass any budget.

No Obama did not have control of both houses. The Democrats as a group had a majority, which means they(and not the president) only have control if they act together. This is a very important distinction, since in America the President Candidates are neither elected/appointed directly by the Parties nor does the President gain control over his Party nor do the Parties have much control over the elected congress Members that belong to their Party.
So lets see the only job of the President in this matter is to summit(not purpose) his own Budget request to the congress. As far as i know he has done so. This Budget request is his PERSONAL WISH LIST.

Everything else, from drafting actual budget resolutions to seeing that they are voted on and if necessary finding a compromise is the job the House and Senate. At the end since its no Bill the President does not even get any say and its not signed by him.
All this actually shows is that the elected Democrats are/were not very unified in political agenda, making the claim that the President could do what ever he wanted even more ridiculous.

Obama can suggest a budget, but it is not up to him to tell the congress what the budget is going to be. He has been spending and borrowing with dictates because of the lack of a budget. Sadly, the house is letting this happen.

Wrong. A congressional Budget resolution is not an actual allocation of money. Its no Bill and thus not a binding law. The actual allocation of money is done with actual congressional spending bills. Guess who gets to make and vote on these and has been doing so many times through out the last 3 years.

John, you made me really happy with your knowledge. Yes, this is how government is supposed to work. The party you belong to shouldn’t matter, you should be worried about the people and what they need to pursue their freedom. Sadly, it no longer works quite like that. Too much polarization.

You summed the rest up pretty good, except having both houses in the control of the democrats (majority) gave Obama his ability to push what he wanted through the congress. Republicans couldn’t do much to stop the democrats. Obama is democrat and yes he had the power to get what he wanted do because he had the support of both houses of congress. This changed in 2010 when he lost the house. But Obama’s wish list, which you are right that is what it is, wasn’t accepted by the democrats in the congress. At this point in time, democrats are trying to separate from Obama so they won’t lose their reelections.

The last statement is correct. I misspoke, it is not a resolution, but a bill. Good catch.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

John, you made me really happy with your knowledge. Yes, this is how government is supposed to work. The party you belong to shouldn’t matter, you should be worried about the people and what they need to pursue their freedom. Sadly, it no longer works quite like that. Too much polarization.

You summed the rest up pretty good, except having both houses in the control of the democrats (majority) gave Obama his ability to push what he wanted through the congress. Republicans couldn’t do much to stop the democrats. Obama is democrat and yes he had the power to get what he wanted do because he had the support of both houses of congress. This changed in 2010 when he lost the house. But Obama’s wish list, which you are right that is what it is, wasn’t accepted by the democrats in the congress. At this point in time, democrats are trying to separate from Obama so they won’t lose their reelections.

The last statement is correct. I misspoke, it is not a resolution, but a bill. Good catch.

Sigh. This is so sad. Its nice that my knowledge made you happy, but it would have been nice if some of it rubbed of on to you. But it seems you did not understand important parts.
Lets try again:
1. Obama did not have the ability to push what he wanted through congress. He did not have the support of the Democrats in congress to such an extent. But each individual Democrat in congress has his own Agenda just like every Republican does. While it is more common for Party members to agree on something and get together to vote the same way, its much much more common for them to disagree, especially on the specifics. Meaning it generally takes a lot of work to get enough people agreeing to something. So i call Bullshit on the claim that Obama had the power to do whatever he wanted.
2. Obamas Wish List as i called was never voted upon. Its neither a resolution or a Bill. And i doubt you will find any Presidents Wish List ever being approved by any congress. This is because its his own individual wish list, intended to outline his ideas and beliefs and not a Budget plan aimed at getting enough votes to pass anything or actually being binding for anything or anyone.
3. Yes the last statement is correct. But NO. Neither the personal wish list of the president nor the Budget plan is a Bill. The first is just a declaration(summiting) of how the president would like to see the congress suck cocks(how they should spend money) and the other is just a declaration(resolution) of how the congress intends to suck cock(how they intend to spend money). The actual cock sucking(money spending) is done with Bills (Like any prostitute can tell you no Bills no cock sucking). These Bills are separate and many of them have passed congress in the last few years.

 
Flag Post

Okay, let me make it real simple.

1. Obama is democrat, both houses were democrat in his first two years. Yes, he could get anything he wanted through the congress. November 2010, midterm elections, the republicans took control of the house, Obama stalemated.

2. Obama’s wish list (budget) is just that, a wish list. Obama does not have the Constitutional power to decide on the budget. Only the house can originate the budget, Obama out. The senate, democrat controlled, votes against budget, Obama now gets to request extensions to keep the government open. Republicans catch hell from constituents for extensions.

3. Correct, no president has power to create the budget. No, parties pull together to get things done until election time when they distance themselves from the president if he is a dud. I give up trying to explain this. You are close to being right, but are off just a bit.

 
Flag Post
Obama did not have the ability to push what he wanted through congress. He did not have the support of the Democrats in congress to such an extent. But each individual Democrat in congress has his own Agenda just like every Republican does. While it is more common for Party members to agree on something and get together to vote the same way, its much much more common for them to disagree, especially on the specifics. Meaning it generally takes a lot of work to get enough people agreeing to something. So i call Bullshit on the claim that Obama had the power to do whatever he wanted.

1) Yes, Obama couldn’t just force whatever he wanted to go through the House and the Senate the first two years of his administration. But, he met early and often with both Pelosi and Reid and it isn’t going out on much of a limb to suggest that the three of them conferred on outlines that would be most likely to pass the two chambers.

2) Your argument works a lot better if this were 30 years ago. Today, the two political parties are far more polarized and far more homogenized than at nearly any point in American history. Most members of a caucus (yes, there are a few outliers, but they are the exception, not the rule) vote as a block. True, each individual Democrat pursues their own interests, but voting against the party line/not backing the president can lead to less desireable committee selections and decrease their chances of moving up through the party, two things that Congresspeople value highly (but not quite as highly as winning each November).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Okay, let me make it real simple.

1. Obama is democrat, both houses were democrat in his first two years. Yes, he could get anything he wanted through the congress.

No he could not. Because thats not how it works. Obama being a democrat does not give him a magical Superpower to make other democrats Vote however he wants.
Its an especially stupid claim to make considering that you are at the same time arguing that the democrats voted against Obama on the Budget(which itself is still false).

2. Obama’s wish list (budget) is just that, a wish list. Obama does not have the Constitutional power to decide on the budget. Only the house can originate the budget, Obama out. The senate, democrat controlled, votes against budget, Obama now gets to request extensions to keep the government open. Republicans catch hell from constituents for extensions.

Your still not there. Obamas wish list is a Budget but not the Budget of the congress. It seems you might have understood this(at least i hope so). But then your confusing 2 separate things.
A) the congressional budget, made by the congress as a resolution on how it says it would like to spend money.
B) Appropriation Bills which rule how the actual Spending is done. A at best sets a non binding time line on B.
This means that the Budget plays no actual roll on if Obama gets to request extensions(please provide a source for Obama using extensions in this manner, I could not find anything, except republicans asking the President to agree to extensions).

3. Correct, no president has power to create the budget. No, parties pull together to get things done until election time when they distance themselves from the president if he is a dud. I give up trying to explain this. You are close to being right, but are off just a bit.

Except for the first sentence i don´t see what this has to do with my third point. Yeah parties pull themselves together to get thins done. But i don´t remember saying they don´t. I was saying under point 1, that its usually a lot of work to do so and it does not always work.

Originally posted by issendorf:
Obama did not have the ability to push what he wanted through congress. He did not have the support of the Democrats in congress to such an extent. But each individual Democrat in congress has his own Agenda just like every Republican does. While it is more common for Party members to agree on something and get together to vote the same way, its much much more common for them to disagree, especially on the specifics. Meaning it generally takes a lot of work to get enough people agreeing to something. So i call Bullshit on the claim that Obama had the power to do whatever he wanted.

1) Yes, Obama couldn’t just force whatever he wanted to go through the House and the Senate the first two years of his administration. But, he met early and often with both Pelosi and Reid and it isn’t going out on much of a limb to suggest that the three of them conferred on outlines that would be most likely to pass the two chambers.

2) Your argument works a lot better if this were 30 years ago. Today, the two political parties are far more polarized and far more homogenized than at nearly any point in American history. Most members of a caucus (yes, there are a few outliers, but they are the exception, not the rule) vote as a block. True, each individual Democrat pursues their own interests, but voting against the party line/not backing the president can lead to less desireable committee selections and decrease their chances of moving up through the party, two things that Congresspeople value highly (but not quite as highly as winning each November).

1. I fully agree.
2. I don´t know if the argument would have worked better 30 years ago, that might be. It works now and thats what matters. Note i don´t disagree with anything your saying here.

 
Flag Post

Ok John. let’s start here.

Article 1, Section 7, First paragraph. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

This does not give the president the power to propose a budget of his own. It is not his Constitutional duty to impose his spending on the country.

Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and excises, to pay the Depts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

This includes the entire congress and again the president is not mentioned. What I’m trying to show you here is how Obama was able to get so much legislation passed in his first two years with both houses of congress controlled by the democrats. Obama had a free reign to do whatever he wanted and it would sail through both houses of congress. Now, his free reign is over as the republicans control the house.

For instance, Obama and the democrats tried an end run on the republicans with Obamacare by calling the tax we would have to pay a mandate. John Roberts turned that on him and it turns out Obama has ended up taxing all Americans with the largest tax in American history.

Obama is not going around congress by using different bureaucracies and executive orders to bypass them. He is not following the Constitution and he is making a mockery of our country.

 
Flag Post

I imagine that if Obama was acting unconstitutionally, it would be pretty big news.

So basically, do you have any sort of real evidence that the way he is acting is unconstitutional? Preferably something that others would consider a valid source. It would also be preferable if it is something unique to him, and not a common practice by presidents in the past.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Ok John. let’s start here.

Article 1, Section 7, First paragraph. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

This does not give the president the power to propose a budget of his own. It is not his Constitutional duty to impose his spending on the country.

What are you trying to say here? Your not giving me any information that would be important to the discussion we had so far. Unless you were implying that Obama did illegally propose a budget and/or impose his spending on the country. Neither things are the case. He did submit his Budget like a good little president should, but summiting is not a legal proposal of resolution or Bill.
Its a “hey kids look what i would like to do” announcment.


Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and excises, to pay the Depts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

This includes the entire congress and again the president is not mentioned. What I’m trying to show you here is how Obama was able to get so much legislation passed in his first two years with both houses of congress controlled by the democrats.

But your not doing that. Your quoting stuff that has nothing to do with what your trying to show.

Obama had a free reign to do whatever he wanted and it would sail through both houses of congress.

No, he did not. Even Issendorf agrees on that point.

For instance, Obama and the democrats tried an end run on the republicans with Obamacare by calling the tax we would have to pay a mandate. John Roberts turned that on him and it turns out Obama has ended up taxing all Americans with the largest tax in American history.

Obama is not going around congress by using different bureaucracies and executive orders to bypass them. He is not following the Constitution and he is making a mockery of our country.

Sigh. A confused old man losing his grip on reality. Thats the impression your giving of right now.
1. They called the penalty one has to pay for not getting Helf insurance where mandated a Penalty and claimed it was not Tax. Now we know it is a penalty but also a tax(well at least its considered as part of the taxing power the congress has). The mandate itself is not a Tax.
2. Its plain bullshit that its supposed to be the largest tax in American history or even the last 20 years. That only works if you cosider not only the Mandate in general as a tax(which it is not), but also all existing and new healthcare insurance coverage as a Tax. Which is a gross misinterpretation and representation of the Facts. Well i can do the same and even stay techincally correct(misrepesentation without misintrepretating the facts), and call it one of the greatest tax cuts in the history of America. Because people who get insurance don´t need to pay the penalty tax, they are factually getting a tax exception on the penalty tax.
3. Can you provide some evidence for Obama acting illegally. As Ketsy pointed out, that would be pretty big news.

 
Flag Post

Not really John. What I was trying to show is Obama’s disregard for the Constitution. He is not leading our country, but dictating to us. He took an oath of office and he is dishonoring that oath. I wanted to start with showing you were in the Constitution it delegates the powers. You don’t seem to understand exactly how politics have been working in the last few decades. If a president has both houses of congress, they will gang up on the lesser party. The Democrats had both houses Obama’s first two years and took advantage of this fact to push there agenda. It used to be called a socialist agenda, but they renamed it to progressive to make it sound more palatable.

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1299.htm

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/06/15/155106744/with-dream-order-obama-did-what-presidents-do-act-without-congress

Obama’s Blatant Disregard for the Constitution is Appalling

By: Rep. Michele Bachmann
June 20, 2012

In order to become President, Barack Obama had to swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. But three years later, I am disgusted with the disregard that the President continues to show to our Constitution. Has he forgotten about the separation of executive, judicial and legislative branches found in our founding document’ Our founders gave us a system of checks and balances so that one person could never seize more power than was provided in the Constitution.

President Obama’s actions demonstrate that he thinks he’s above the law. When he doesn’t get his way, he creates new policies to his liking.

Under Obamacare, an even playing field doesn’t exist for businesses. And President Obama must have recognized that, because he ordered his Health and Human Services Secretary to provide waivers from the healthcare overhaul. Unions, universities and restaurants in Nancy Pelosi’s district received waivers so that they didn’t have to comply with the law.

Then we have the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Passed in 1996, DOMA is a federal law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. But earlier this spring, the administration said it will no longer defend the constitutionally of DOMA. So even though this law is on the books ’ passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton ’ President Obama just thinks we should ignore it.

Last week Obama threw the Constitution out the window again. Even through Congress disagreed, the President was happy to circumvent the Constitution in order to protect younger illegal immigrants from deportation and hand them work permits. He stands resolute in this position despite the fact that, a year prior, the President said this about immigration: “Some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.” He continued, “That’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

Today, President Obama invoked executive privilege so Attorney General Eric Holder wouldn’t have to turn over documents on Fast and Furious. That is not what executive privilege was intended for!

Where will the madness end’ When will the President stop blatantly disregarding the Constitution’

Sadly, I don’t think this President cares that he is ignoring the laws of our land. Nor, does he plan to curb his agenda. In fact, I expect things to only grow worse under this President. Thanks to an open mic in March, President Obama was caught telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have ‘more flexibility’ in his second term.

The future of our country depends on making sure that the executive head of our nation knows he is subject to our laws and that he is under the Constitution.

Mr. President, I urge you, stop your autocratic reign; drop everything you are doing and read the Constitution. You will be well-served to remember the document that you swore to preserve, protect, and defend.

http://www.redstate.com/rep_michele_bachmann/2012/06/20/obama%E2%80%99s-blatant-disregard-for-the-constitution-is-appalling/

 
Flag Post

still better than Reagan’s league of criminals; still better than George Bush’s warmongering and enemy creation; still better than George junior’s putting people in prison and torturing them without trial or anything, against internatoinal treaties and their own laws.

 
Flag Post

I ask you to provide credible links, so you provide something written by Michelle Bachmann. Awesome.

NPR:

First, this post (because it is a post, not a news article) doesn’t claim that the president acted unconstitutionally. It essentially says that he started taking a more direct approach and that he is completely within his power to do so. From a quote in the article:

When members of Congress scream and holler about Obama taking certain actions on immigration policy, it’s within their power to do something about it. They can enact a statute that would overturn or amend, whatever it is that Obama’s doing. So in my mind calls by members of Congress to exercise self-restraint really ring hollow.

Redstate:

She provides several examples of things Obama has done that she is, as far as I can tell, claiming are unconstitutional. The first example is that a specific district is getting a waiver in a bill. This is not unconstitutional. Second, she cites that Obama said that his administration will no longer defend the constitutionally [sic] of DOMA. This is also not unconstitutional. If DOMA is constitutionally acceptable, than no one will have reason to care. The third example is an example of executive power. I’m not convinced it’s unconstitutional, but I think I’ll have to read up on what executive privilege does and does not allow.

Whatdoesitmean:

Am I expected to take this link seriously?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ketsy:

I imagine that if Obama was acting unconstitutionally, it would be pretty big news.

So basically, do you have any sort of real evidence that the way he is acting is unconstitutional? Preferably something that others would consider a valid source. It would also be preferable if it is something unique to him, and not a common practice by presidents in the past.

Silly you, the media can’t just say anything to the public.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ketsy:

I imagine that if Obama was acting unconstitutionally, it would be pretty big news.

So basically, do you have any sort of real evidence that the way he is acting is unconstitutional? Preferably something that others would consider a valid source. It would also be preferable if it is something unique to him, and not a common practice by presidents in the past.

You’re kidding me, right? First of all, there has been lots of buzz about him not following the constitution; that accusation is not out of the blue. Second of all the NDAA, the Patriot act, and the war on terror are all unconstitutional.
The Patriot act violates the 4th amendment, the NDAA violates the 5th and 6th amendment and congress has the power to declare war not the president and Obama is continuing what Bush started.

Also please don’t misinterpret this; I do not support Bush or Romney because they both support the above^, I simply don’t support Obama and want a president that would follow the constitution like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

still better than Reagan’s league of criminals; still better than George Bush’s warmongering and enemy creation; still better than George junior’s putting people in prison and torturing them without trial or anything, against internatoinal treaties and their own laws.

If you want to help our country, voting for what you think might be the lesser of two evils will not suffice.

 
Flag Post

^true. that’s why i would vote 3rd party.

 
Flag Post

I would vote 3rd party if I thought my vote would count toward anything. But to be honest I’m starting to like Romney and Ryan. I always have liked Ryan and I think he was a good choice for VP. Is Ron Paul going to run 3rd party? I would like to see a real 3rd party on the conservative side. Republicans are too moderate and meek for me.

 
Flag Post

lol. that last comment is unbelievable to me. not one party over here is as conservative as even the Democrats.

 
Flag Post

I’ve heard that claim before. It’s kind of funny.

What I think is interesting is that this is the second election in a row that the Republicans fielded someone who is relatively moderate. First McCain, now Romney. It’s like they think their best chances are to not be so conservative.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

lol. that last comment is unbelievable or me. not one party over here is as conservative as even the Democrats over here.

You mean our Democrats are considered conservative in your country? What country is that?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ketsy:

I’ve heard that claim before. It’s kind of funny.

What I think is interesting is that this is the second election in a row that the Republicans fielded someone who is relatively moderate. First McCain, now Romney. It’s like they think their best chances are to not be so conservative.

You are right Ketsy, they seem to lean moderate and that is part of the problem they are having. They are not bringing in the conservatives very well. Although, this election will be different because conservatives can’t stand Obama. The first time around Obama actually had a lot of conservative republican votes. One of the reasons he was elected. He won’t have them this time around. This is why he is trying to get the womens and the Mexican votes. From what I have heard, he is losing a lot of the black vote too.

 
Flag Post

Supposedly, he lost some points with the “black public” because of his support of same-sex marriage. I remember hearing that when the last presidential election occurred, the increased black voter turnout was partly credited with the passing of the Proposition 8, which more or less banned same-sex marriage in California.

 
Flag Post

Interesting, I didn’t know that was why he lost so many of the black vote. I think he is trying to get the gay vote now that he has changed his mind on that subject.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Interesting, I didn’t know that was why he lost so many of the black vote. I think he is trying to get the gay vote now that he has changed his mind on that subject.

That’s an incredible change of mind, especially considering fighting for equal rights for LGBT constituted some of his campaign promises the first time around. Imagine that, changing your mind, and having your mind be exactly the same as before you changed it.

I also like the way there is a “black vote”, as if black people are not capable of being individuals, and must vote en-masse if they vote at all.


Originally posted by jhco50:

You mean our Democrats are considered conservative in your country? What country is that?

Most of the first-world countries would consider the Democrats to be right-wing, and the Republicans to be extreme right wing.

If they are not right encough for you, that puts you within the bounds of fascism. There are quite a few neo-Nazi groups even in Europe, which would welcome your membership, Jhco. Have you considered finding a local chapter?

 
Flag Post

Is this where Jhco tells us he doesn’t hate women?
That voting for a party full of old white men that are basically legislating based on their fear of the female body doesn’t mean you believe as they do?

I’m just curious. I’ve seen and heard a lot of chatter about how the likes of the Tea Party are simply fiscal conservatives.
Yet, once the Tea Party gets a number of its candidates seated in Congress and various State-level legislatures, proposed anti-abortion bills hit a record high.

Now, over the last week or so, we’ve had statements that are seemingly indefensible, suddenly being at least partially defended by the presumptive GOP Presidential nominee and his VP pick.

All of this points, once again, to a party hell-bent on controlling a specific segment of the population, against their will, and without a sound knowledge base from which to do so.
It’s stunning.

If the GOP/TeaOP are so big on fiscal conservancy, why do they constantly focus on social conservancy as a platform?
If they’re so big on individual rights and freedoms, why do they constantly try to legislate an individual’s private life?
If you’re a GOP voter, and you claim to want a 3rd party option, why do you still vote for and empower these scared old men?

 
Flag Post
Is this where Jhco tells us he doesn’t hate women?
That voting for a party full of old white men that are basically legislating based on their fear of the female body doesn’t mean you believe as they do?

Yes, that’s right Softest. He doesn’t vote for them because he agrees with any of their policies – he doesn’t. He votes for them because that is the patriotic thing to do, and that is what he has always done. They are as far from the ‘commies’ as you can get – and that’s a good thing, right?

 
Flag Post
Now, over the last week or so, we’ve had statements that are seemingly indefensible, suddenly being at least partially defended by the presumptive GOP Presidential nominee and his VP pick.

By partially defended, do you mean calling for Mr. Akin to drop out of the race?

All of this points, once again, to a party hell-bent on controlling a specific segment of the population, against their will, and without a sound knowledge base from which to do so.
It’s stunning.

I think you’re exaggerating on how much the GOP actually cares about abortion.

If the GOP/TeaOP are so big on fiscal conservancy, why do they constantly focus on social conservancy as a platform?
If they’re so big on individual rights and freedoms, why do they constantly try to legislate an individual’s private life?

1) The GOP =/= Tea Party, so stop equating them. The GOP is the moderate branch of the Party, Tea Party members are the hard right.

2) How dare they stand up for unborn children, those bastards.