Obama betrays his supporters

Originally posted by normbenign
Is that necessarily a bad thing? The goals of both are parallel, and have a seemingly possible collaborative goal. Only if you presume that for a few dollars profits, the corporate entity would kill off its potential consumers intentionally is it risky.

All in all, I'd rather have a rather wealthy entity controlling experimental stuff, than the gover ...[text shortened]... s wrong, Monsanto can be sued. When has a government agency been sued because they screwed up?

Given your ideological fanaticism, it hardly surprising that you would trust a corporate entity operating for profit to protect the health of consumers more than the democratically elected representatives of those same consumers. Of course, even if Monsanto was sued into bankruptcy, its corporate officials would probably walk away as the fabulous wealthy men they already are so they have little pecuniary incentive to be especially careful about the goods they produce. If those goods earn short term profits which accrue to the corporation the incentives of the market value that far more than any long term costs to consumers. Thalidomide was profitable when it was introduced; similar examples are numerous for those, that unlike you, don't have an aversion to any part of reality that clashes with their preconceived beliefs.

Originally posted by normbenign
About 10% of House seats are in play in most elections. Gerrymandering by both parties make most House seats "safe".

I have a solution. Reduce the pay, so that nobody wants to stay in Congress for a long time. Eliminate all pensions, and all residual health care for Congress. Make Congressional salaries the average of private sector workers in thei ...[text shortened]... un, and they would not stay forever. Oh and cut the budget for Congressional staff and perks.

That sounds like what the Socialist Party has done in the Netherlands.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Monsanto is marketing dangerous GMO foods and need to be put completely out of business. The only reason they havent been is that they are a major corporate player in the new fascism.

How are the GMO foods they market "dangerous" precisely?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How are the GMO foods they market "dangerous" precisely?

The point is their dangerousness or lack thereof should be determined by the USDA. The law essentially denudes the appropriate regulatory agency of such authority just for this specific group of food. That's bad law but not really bad enough to shut down the government over.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Overridden????

Now you are just making stuff up. You are the one spouting nonsense, not me.
By all means, explain to me how Obama can be overridden

2/3 vote

Originally posted by moon1969
2/3 vote

True, but not likely the way congress is right now.
You are simply not being realistic.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
True, but not likely the way congress is right now.
You are simply not being realistic.

Actually it's highly likely an Obama veto of the Continuing Resolution on such grounds would have been overridden; it passed 267-151 in the House and 73-26 in the Senate and most votes against it were Republicans who might have loved a chance to override an Obama veto. The alternative would have been at least a partial government shutdown on March 27.

EDIT: OOPS! My mistake: The so-called “continuing resolution” vote had the support of all but 14 Republicans, but only 53 of 190 Democrats.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/06/the-continuing-resolution-how-they-voted/

I still find it hard to believe that such a veto wouldn't have been overridden though.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually it's highly likely an Obama veto of the Continuing Resolution on such grounds would have been overridden; it passed 267-151 in the House and 73-26 in the Senate and most votes against it were Republicans who might have loved a chance to override an Obama veto. The alternative would have been at least a partial government shutdown on March 27.
...[text shortened]... I still find it hard to believe that such a veto wouldn't have been overridden though.

That depends on the circumstances. If Obama had vetoed the bill and asked for another without the clutter and stated for the record that it is only because of the poison pill amendment things probably would have been very different than your prediction.

The question you should ask yourself is would every issue pass if they were in completely separate bills?

When satellite TV companies bundle 60 channels (more or less) together people buy the package. Do they really want all 60 channels because they like them all? Absolutely not! I'd wager money that customers don't even watch half of them. Why do customers buy the 60 channel package? Simple, Dish Network and Direct TV will not give them any other option. You cannot pick your channels. It is the package deal or no deal. That is how it works.

Similarly, certain congressmen draft a bill as a package so other congressmen that vote on it have no other option either. This is why I think you are leaping to conclusions that are unwarranted. You have no idea how it would turn out. You just think you do.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That depends on the circumstances. If Obama had vetoed the bill and asked for another without the clutter and stated for the record that it is only because of the poison pill amendment things probably would have been very different than your prediction.

The question you should ask yourself is would every issue pass if they were in completely separate ...[text shortened]... nclusions that are unwarranted. You have no idea how it would turn out. You just think you do.

BS. If Obama had vetoed the bi-partisan bill the right would have had a field day blasting him and you'd be on here blasting him for doing exactly what you're now calling for him to do.

There are those of you who will literally criticize him no matter what he does, so he should basically just ignore you and do whatever is best.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That depends on the circumstances. If Obama had vetoed the bill and asked for another without the clutter and stated for the record that it is only because of the poison pill amendment things probably would have been very different than your prediction.

The question you should ask yourself is would every issue pass if they were in completely separate ...[text shortened]... nclusions that are unwarranted. You have no idea how it would turn out. You just think you do.

Yes, the Republican House would have docilely complied with Obama's demands.🙄

There was a deadline of March 27th to get funding for government operations. The House didn't pass this until March 6th and the Senate didn't pass their version until March 20th. An Obama veto surely would have meant a partial government shutdown would have occurred with no assurance that any bill could have been passed in the near future. This would have been political suicide as well as very bad for the country.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, the Republican House would have docilely complied with Obama's demands.🙄

There was a deadline of March 27th to get funding for government operations. The House didn't pass this until March 6th and the Senate didn't pass their version until March 20th. An Obama veto surely would have meant a partial government shutdown would have occ ...[text shortened]... the near future. This would have been political suicide as well as very bad for the country.

Obama has gone along with every foreign policy goal that Bush started. There really is no difference between those goals.

I don't like Obama because he changed nothing. He is just another Bush in different clothing. He is the best republican the democrats elected. He has not tried to fight the republicans at all, even when public support was with him all the way.

You dems just rally behind Obama because you think you won. You got your candidate and he betrayed all that voted for him. Enjoy your hollow victory.

🙄

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Obama has gone along with every foreign policy goal that Bush started. There really is no difference between those goals.

I don't like Obama because he changed nothing. He is just another Bush in different clothing. He is the best republican the democrats elected. He has not tried to fight the republicans at all, even when public support was with him ...[text shortened]... You got your candidate and he betrayed all that voted for him. Enjoy your hollow victory.

🙄

I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012. In foreign policy, such criticism is basically warranted. But not in domestic policy.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012. In foreign policy, such criticism is basically warranted. But not in domestic policy.

Imperialists don't care about domestic policy, do they?

Still, I'm curious. How many domestic policy goals have the Democrats accomplished since Obama got elected in your opinion?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Imperialists don't care about domestic policy, do they?

Still, I'm curious. How many domestic policy goals have the Democrats accomplished since Obama got elected in your opinion?

Of course the health care bill (universal coverage was something Democrats had sought for 60 or so years). There was some stimulus spending. The higher earners got some tax increases. Those are just off the top of my head; I'm sure people who actually voted for Obama could come up with more.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Imperialists don't care about domestic policy, do they?

Still, I'm curious. How many domestic policy goals have the Democrats accomplished since Obama got elected in your opinion?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/

You can also sort by in-the-works, compromise, and promise broken (many of which were attempted but failed to get through congress)