Why does trump deserve a chance when Obama wasn't given one?

[Reggie Miller]

If this (DC Riots) is how Democrats behave when they lose an election, then maybe it would be better if they didn't participate.

Nope, that's not Constitutional. The right to assemble peacefully is guaranteed by the first amendment. But only if they assemble peacefully.

If it isn't peaceful assembly it's against the law and it is not a right given in the Constitution.

 

[Akivah]

Nope, that's not Constitutional. The right to assemble peacefully is guaranteed by the first amendment. But only if they assemble peacefully.

If it isn't peaceful assembly it's against the law and it is not a right given in the Constitution.

Alright, alight, I'll put a smiley on it. It was meant as a joke.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If this (DC Riots) is how Democrats behave when they lose an election, then maybe it would be better if they didn't participate.

Or they need to participate better.

The ones who are rioting are actually less "democrats" and more the liberals who are upset by the man who did manage to win. If he actually does anywhere near anything he has said he will do it calls for riots. I feel that the riots should wait till something happens. You can't simply protest an inaguration. That does nothing.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Alright, alight, I'll put a smiley on it. It was meant as a joke.

Oh. Sorry about that.

 

[metis]

Deflecting. What I think about that has nothing to do with the present discussion.

I wasn't deflecting-- just asking about what you think in a related area that deals with the election. So, how about answering it, or does it make you feel uncomfortable?

 

[metis]

If this (DC Riots) is how [some] Democrats behave when they lose an election, then maybe it would be better if they didn't participate.

Can I interject the word "some" into what you wrote?

Well, I just decided that I would be pretentious enough to do just that.

Shabbat shalom

 

[Reggie Miller]

I wasn't deflecting-- just asking about what you think in a related area that deals with the election. So, how about answering it, or does it make you feel uncomfortable?

I didn't vote for him, either.

 

[Deidre]

Obama was given a chance, twice. lol

 

[metis]

Obama was given a chance, twice. lol

... and did a commendable job even though the other party said right from the get-go that it was their number-one priority to make sure he was a one-term president.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I didn't vote for him, either.

Voted for Johnson. I'd vote for a dead dog over Hillary.

 

[Mister Emu]

But to blame that all or even mostly on Obama is nonsensical, based on surveys taken.

It was his party to lead. He lost the House for Democrats with the party line of "read it after you pass it" on the ACA, and further entrenched the perceived need for opposition control of congress with his reaction to those losses.

Even where he wasn't directly responsible, he was the leader of the Democrat party. It was his responsibility to guide the party to be more palatable to the voters they had lost. You can say it isn't fair, but that is leadership.

It's all speculation.

Then it is silly to speak in concrete terms as you did.

 

[esmith]

Obama wasn't given a chance ......bullcrap
111th Congress Democrats controlled the Senate and House
112th Congress Democrats controlled the Senate, Republican controlled the House
113th Congress Democrats controlled the Senate, Republican controlled the House
114th Congress Republicans controlled the Senate and the House
and now
115th Congress Republicans control the White House, Senate, and House

So, it looks like the Obama's first term was all Democrats in charge and the Republicans couldn't do anything about it.
Then the Dem's started screwing the pooch and lost the House then continued their losing ways and lost the Senate the next Congress
Then they blew themselves out of the water and lost the White House and maintained their losing ways in the Senate and House.

So I think facts prove that the Obama was given a chance, then you Dem's starting screwing the pooch and deserved the smack-down you got.

 

[Kemosloby]

This is tough, because you're right. The levels of obstruction and attempts to deligitimize his presidency were unprecidented in modern history.

But I believe history will tell us a lot of the first black president. . . His consistent tone, his patience, his intelligence.

We have to live up to his legacy, and let Trump's actual administration of his government be his indictment.

Yes, amazing how his hollow words flowed out so easily. So we go from a trained orator to a skilled business man. I think we are in better hands now.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Obama wasn't given a chance ......bullcrap
111th Congress Democrats controlled the Senate and House
112th Congress Democrats controlled the Senate, Republican controlled the House
113th Congress Democrats controlled the Senate, Republican controlled the House
114th Congress Republicans controlled the Senate and the House
and now
115th Congress Republicans control the White House, Senate, and House

So, it looks like the Obama's first term was all Democrats in charge and the Republicans couldn't do anything about it.
Then the Dem's started screwing the pooch and lost the House then continued their losing ways and lost the Senate the next Congress
Then they blew themselves out of the water and lost the White House and maintained their losing ways in the Senate and House.

So I think facts prove that the Obama was given a chance, then you Dem's starting screwing the pooch and deserved the smack-down you got.

The senate fillabustered more routine appointments of Obama's than all other presidents combined. That's obstruction for the sake of obstruction.

If you're not familiar with how a bill becomes a law, you actually need House participation. Most of Obama's attempt to actually help the working class. . . Attempting to pass badly needed infrastructure spending (both of which are platforms of the Trump administration BTW) were shot down many times, based on the House vote.

They also made constant threats of government shutdowns, brinksmanship over routine budget matters,like debt ceiling raises, which every president that came before did not have to deal with.

The goal was to make Obama fail, no matter what. Party over country, even it it meant scorched earth and a basic failure of constitutional duties, like SCOTUS nominees.

On the other hand, your point is still valid. Dems did screw up. We always have a poor showing in midterm elections, and Pubs ALWAYS vote.

It's a failing that we've not been able to figure out. However, I have a feeling Trump might be just the motivation we need. . .

I love you.

 

[esmith]

The senate fillabustered more routine appointments of Obama's than all other presidents combined. That's obstruction for the sake of obstruction.

If you're not familiar with how a bill becomes a law, you actually need House participation. Most of Obama's attempt to actually help the working class. . . Attempting to pass badly needed infrastructure spending (both of which are platforms of the Trump administration BTW) were shot down many times, based on the House vote.

They also made constant threats of government shutdowns, brinksmanship over routine budget matters,like debt ceiling raises, which every president that came before did not have to deal with.

The goal was to make Obama fail, no matter what. Party over country, even it it meant scorched earth and a basic failure of constitutional duties, like SCOTUS nominees.

On the other hand, your point is still valid. Dems did screw up. We always have a poor showing in midterm elections, and Pubs ALWAYS vote.

It's a failing that we've not been able to figure out. However, I have a feeling Trump might be just the motivation we need. . .

I love you.

Did not the Dem's have complete control over the 111th Congress. There was nothing the Republicans could do. So basically the Obama got his chance with the 111th Congress. So, how about giving President Trump a chance with the 115th Congress. If he screws it up then he could lose either or both houses of Congress, in 2018.
Oh by the way what was the results of Obama's appointment to his cabinet?
Oh that's right he got all of his appointments. How's your obstructionist Dem's doing today?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Did not the Dem's have complete control over the 111th Congress. There was nothing the Republicans could do. So basically the Obama got his chance with the 111th Congress. So, how about giving President Trump a chance with the 115th Congress. If he screws it up then he could lose either or both houses of Congress, in 2018.
Oh by the way what was the results of Obama's appointment to his cabinet?
Oh that's right he got all of his appointments. How's your obstructionist Dem's doing today?

Yep. We did have those two years. And we lost in the midterms. I agree.

And Obama got his appointments because of the nuclear option, not because Pubs were reasonable. . . *shrug*

As for the next two years, I can't MAKE myself agree with most of Trump's policies, and his tactics since his election have been downright awful.

Though I do support him on some.

The Dems are prepared to support him on infrastructure spending, and anything else that helps the working class. They'll agree to a health care plan that retains the coverage of the ACA.

All trump promises.

Sanders has also called for there to be no obstruction.

Bernie Sanders urges Dems to challenge -- but not obstruct -- Trump - CNNPolitics.com

So sorry, your narrative is simply untrue. Most Dems want to help the American people first.

I still love you.

 

[metis]

It was his party to lead. He lost the House for Democrats with the party line of "read it after you pass it" on the ACA, and further entrenched the perceived need for opposition control of congress with his reaction to those losses.

Even where he wasn't directly responsible, he was the leader of the Democrat party. It was his responsibility to guide the party to be more palatable to the voters they had lost. You can say it isn't fair, but that is leadership.


Then it is silly to speak in concrete terms as you did.

But, as Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to any organized political party-- I'm a Democrat". The idea that somehow Obama is to blamed for this is ludicrous, especially since the polls say otherwise.

Again, people don't vote for who's leaving office-- they vote for whom is running for office. The "coattails" only go so far. On top of that, there were some long-standing issues at stake as well, such as a general loss of jobs that has been going on for decades.