• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Political Center

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Remember back when Obama had supermajorities in both houses of Congress, 2008 to 2010? Remember how he got everything on the liberal wish list passed. Single payer health care, gun control, immigration reform, and so on?

No, neither do I. And why not?

Because people in his own party opposed him on those things or made it clear they would not support them from the outset. The Republicans weren't supporting him at all on these things, not a single vote. He was having to negotiate and compromise with the rightward half of his own party.

So instead of single payer health care we got got this huge wet kiss for health insurance companies, big pharm, etc. Instead of any of the rest we got nothing.

What happened in 2008 was that the political center moved a little to the left. In other words, if the Democrats win one year it doesn't mean that the leftists get all their hearts desire. Far from it, because even in the two parties there is a spectrum of political positions from the center to the edge. When a party is in the majority that spectrum reaches even further to the center because more purple districts and states get drawn in.

This year we saw another good example of this. On the assault weapons ban we saw just how far to the right a lot of Democrats in the Senate are on gun control.
 
We still dont even have that under Obama

Fortunately. Monopolies are always bad news for consumers, and the notoriously inefficient government bureaucracies that decide who and when and how much to pay can't possibly help.
 

In the political arena what is the purpose of the citizenry discussing the President and his deeds or acts, if not to deceive? The President cannot legislate (Article I, Section 1) and U.S. citizen's vote does not elect a President and never has (Amendment 12).

The only "constitutional" federal Official citizen's vote elects are Representatives, all 435 of them every two years (Article I, Section 2, clause 1).
 
This is only a "secret" because the MSM will never tell you that demorats from red states/districts must also represent their constituents to get (re)elected. If Harry Reid had the votes, all of these liberal (leftist?) dream policies would have been enacted. The MSM tries to make it appear that the bluest of the demorats would be "in charge" if only the reddest of the republicants were not elected to stop them which, obviously, as your post points out, is not the case at all. All congress critters, regardless of party, need massive campaign cash to stay in office and cannot violate (too much) the basic trust of their constituents to get re-elected.
 

They're getting their gun control in many states, its not like 2nd Amendment advocates have had any victories or gotten anything out of "compromises."

Just because Feinstein's AWB is being voted on as a separate Amendment doesn't mean they've lost, it passed in 1994 as an Amendment FYI.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…