The Many Faces of US Politics...

[stew]

But in general, after the Bush Wars for Bush cronies, there is no way I want to see a Republican in charge of US military policy again.

Latest score: Bush 4 Obama 7


Bush: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia.

Obama: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria.

Emm, if you're talking about wars started under his presidency then surely it is 4-3 to Bush? Maths not a strong point, no, Fox?

And we're the libtards 

Obama hasn't invaded any country.

The score is Bush 2 (Iraq & Afghanistan) Obama 0.

American lives lost to date in those wars are 2,229 & 4,488 respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

Obama did announce Operation Inherent Resolve (Operations against ISIL) in 2014. At the end of 2015 there appear to have been 4 US military fatalities according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Inherent_Resolve

More information here: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Comparing Bush's war record and Obama's is absurd. And despite everything George 'we're gonna smoke them out' Bush didn't get Bin Laden, Obama did.

The military had on several occasions known where he was with reasonable certainty, he refused to pull the pin and that hesitation cost lives unfortunately, I will give him credit for nailing the bastard however.

[J70]

It's all very scary to watch unfold. I don't know any Trump supporters. I'd love to know why they support him.  He is building up steam now and looks to be the front runner.
Any chance of a 3rd party emerging at this point? Or an independent candidate like Romney stepping up or is it too late?

Russia backs Trump. The KKK backs Trump... speaks volumes.

Obama should run for a 3rd term. Maybe that was the plan all along. Save the day.

2 and done thank the almighty, he is a walking disaster.

Remember Isis being the. JV squad?, Jesus wept.

I am not hoping for this Stew on any level - i think he is a horrible president - I just speculate that this was the plan all along.

You think Obama thinks/hopes they will repeal an amendment to the constitution in the next seven months so he can run again?

[muppet]

But in general, after the Bush Wars for Bush cronies, there is no way I want to see a Republican in charge of US military policy again.

Latest score: Bush 4 Obama 7


Bush: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia.

Obama: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria.

Emm, if you're talking about wars started under his presidency then surely it is 4-3 to Bush? Maths not a strong point, no, Fox?

And we're the libtards 

Obama hasn't invaded any country.

The score is Bush 2 (Iraq & Afghanistan) Obama 0.

American lives lost to date in those wars are 2,229 & 4,488 respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

Obama did announce Operation Inherent Resolve (Operations against ISIL) in 2014. At the end of 2015 there appear to have been 4 US military fatalities according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Inherent_Resolve

More information here: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

Comparing Bush's war record and Obama's is absurd. And despite everything George 'we're gonna smoke them out' Bush didn't get Bin Laden, Obama did.

The military had on several occasions known where he was with reasonable certainty, he refused to pull the pin and that hesitation cost lives unfortunately, I will give him credit for nailing the b**tard however.

Killing Bin Laden or not probably didn't cost or save lives. It was simply revenge, or justice as George W called it. But it was entirely understandable given the circumstances.

[seafoid]

Muppet just out of curiosity do you want Hilary in? Just so a Republican isn't in power?

I'm afraid many people will vote for Trump  - just so a Democrat isn't in the white house.

Both for me are very scary options....

Good question.

Trying to read behind it, it seems no one could possibly think she might be any good as President. I just think she is by far the best of the bunch running. Her personality doesn't do anything for me, but that doesn't matter. Calling her a liar is hysterically funny, considering no one over here believes anything politicians say (except maybe the party lackies).

I think Sanders is unelectable, but I could be wrong. I just think he is too far to the left for the US (or from the right-wing datum that they call the center over there).

I think Trump is not only unelectable, but unacceptable to many likely partners. Remember the international reaction to this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jörg_Haider. There could be a lot more of this if Trump gets in: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/donald-trump-uk-ban-debate/index.html Is that what America wants?

But in general, after the Bush Wars for Bush cronies, there is no way I want to see a Republican in charge of US military policy again.

Hillary represents  continuity of Wall St rules, pauperisation of the working class, war and economic incoherence. The elites who back her have nothing to offer Dick and Jane . The US is heading into a particularly volatile decade and failed business as usual is not going to work.

•   No matter how well-written or delivered, a speech cannot divert whole societies from a well-established course of action. Policies in motion tend to remain in motion; to change the trajectory of a deeply-entrenched set of initiatives requires the application of political forces of equal momentum

Sanders if elected could start that process but none of the others can . The US is like Ireland in 2005.

[J70]

Obama trolling the GOP by nominating a libtard to the Supreme Court. Yer man must have a thicker skin than a rhinoceros.

Smart.

They will be apoplectic. There will be a massive row, filibuster, etc. etc.

Then there will be a compromise on something or other, like the debt mountain, or Obamacare. And he will nominate someone else. And everyone will be happy. Until the Reptards realise what happened. Probably at Hilary's inauguration.

By all accounts this man is a moderate, even described by Orrin Hatch as a " consensus nominee" a few years back when he was hoping Obama would nominate him instead of Elena Kagan.

Should be interesting to see how they play this now.

[LeoMc]

Obama trolling the GOP by nominating a libtard to the Supreme Court. Yer man must have a thicker skin than a rhinoceros.

Smart.

They will be apoplectic. There will be a massive row, filibuster, etc. etc.

Then there will be a compromise on something or other, like the debt mountain, or Obamacare. And he will nominate someone else. And everyone will be happy. Until the Reptards realise what happened. Probably at Hilary's inauguration.

By all accounts this man is a moderate, even described by Orrin Hatch as a " consensus nominee" a few years back when he was hoping Obama would nominate him instead of Elena Kagan.

Should be interesting to see how they play this now.

That was my understanding. He was described as the most centrist option. It looked like BO selected him just to push the GOP into a corner on the fillibuster threats.

[LeoMc]

Just skimming through this thread.

Fox and Stew are complete lunatics.

Sin e.

And getting worse lol

I would not put Stew in that bracket. He is a conservative and he gets wound up easily but he is not a lunatic like the "Kenyan" hater.

[Oraisteach]

Think they'll stall in hopes of a GOP presidential win, thereby allowing for a much more conservative justice.  In the event of a DEM victory, watch out for a frantic all hands on deck approach as they scramble to accept Obama's choice in the actual lame duck period, fearing that a Clinton/Sanders choice would be much less palatable.

What infuriates me is their blatant hypocrisy.  Obama won the last election by around 5,000,000 and the one before that by about 10,000,000.  That's why he has the title PRESIDENT.  These people say that the voice of the people should be heard, but it has been heard, loud and clear.  Obama was their choice, and according to the Constitution, which they revere as though it were carved on tablets of stone, it is the president's duty to nominate a justice, and theirs to advise and consent.  Thus, whether or not they accept Obama's choice, they should in fairness give him a hearing. 

This obstructionism has been the hallmark of GOP tactics during Obama's presidency, and has been quintessentially Cruz, so I just hope that this gamble explodes in their faces.  Obama's pick seems ideal, so slap it in til em for their greed and hypocrisy.

[muppet]

Think they'll stall in hopes of a GOP presidential win, thereby allowing for a much more conservative justice.  In the event of a DEM victory, watch out for a frantic all hands on deck approach as they scramble to accept Obama's choice in the actual lame duck period, fearing that a Clinton/Sanders choice would be much less palatable.

What infuriates me is their blatant hypocrisy.  Obama won the last election by around 5,000,000 and the one before that by about 10,000,000.  That's why he has the title PRESIDENT.  These people say that the voice of the people should be heard, but it has been heard, loud and clear.  Obama was their choice, and according to the Constitution, which they revere as though it were carved on tablets of stone, it is the president's duty to nominate a justice, and theirs to advise and consent.  Thus, whether or not they accept Obama's choice, they should in fairness give him a hearing. 

This obstructionism has been the hallmark of GOP tactics during Obama's presidency, and has been quintessentially Cruz, so I just hope that this gamble explodes in their faces.  Obama's pick seems ideal, so slap it in til em for their greed and hypocrisy.

Do you think the US is a democracy?

[Oraisteach]

What an absurd thought, Muppet!!! 

[whitey]

What an absurd thought, Muppet!!!

Oraisteach.....how closely do you follow the news, or do you just ignore the parts that dont suit you?

3 Senior Democrats...Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are all on record saying a president should not nominate anyone to the supreme court during an election year.  I'll see if I can find the clips for you if you dont believe me

But now that the shoe is on the other foot, theyre frothing at the mouth with indignation-LOL

Get over it....its politics, and a Democratic Senate would be doing exactly the same if it was the final year of a Republican Administration

[J70]

What an absurd thought, Muppet!!!

Oraisteach.....how closely do you follow the news, or do you just ignore the parts that dont suit you?

3 Senior Democrats...Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are all on record saying a president should not nominate anyone to the supreme court during an election year.  I'll see if I can find the clips for you if you dont believe me

But now that the shoe is on the other foot, theyre frothing at the mouth with indignation-LOL

Get over it....its politics, and a Democratic Senate would be doing exactly the same if it was the final year of a Republican Administration

Except that the current GOP congress, on top of all the rest of their obstructionism, has brought the blocking of justices and other appointments to levels never, ever even approached in the past.

The Dems have rhetoric against them. No one knows if they would have followed through. Politicians are ALWAYS making threats, usually in the hope of influencing or cowing the opposition or as a starting positin. The last time this issue came up, Reagan got his appointment (even the one who was rejected, Bork, before Kennedy's nomination, got hearings and a vote).

The GOP, on the other hand, are intent on actual action (or lack of action). There is NO precedent for what they are doing. But, if they follow through with their threats, they're setting one, and the shoe will be on the other foot eventually, just as it will for all of the other positions they've refused to allow be filled.

This is partly why it makes me laugh when you hear the right wing media and GOP base whining about the people they've sent to Washington doing nothing for them. Have they been asleep for the past seven years? Or is it that they think only the people THEY elect should matter when it comes to the give and take of democracy? That only THEIR elected politicians should get everything THEY want, despite the fact that the country overwhelmingly elected and reelected the current president?

[whitey]

What an absurd thought, Muppet!!!

Oraisteach.....how closely do you follow the news, or do you just ignore the parts that dont suit you?

3 Senior Democrats...Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are all on record saying a president should not nominate anyone to the supreme court during an election year.  I'll see if I can find the clips for you if you dont believe me

But now that the shoe is on the other foot, theyre frothing at the mouth with indignation-LOL

Get over it....its politics, and a Democratic Senate would be doing exactly the same if it was the final year of a Republican Administration

Except that the current GOP congress, on top of all the rest of their obstructionism, has brought the blocking of justices and other appointments to levels never, ever even approached in the past.

The Dems have rhetoric against them. No one knows if they would have followed through. Politicians are ALWAYS making threats, usually in the hope of influencing or cowing the opposition or as a starting positin. The last time this issue came up, Reagan got his appointment (even the one who was rejected, Bork, before Kennedy's nomination, got hearings and a vote).

The GOP, on the other hand, are intent on actual action (or lack of action). There is NO precedent for what they are doing. But, if they follow through with their threats, they're setting one, and the shoe will be on the other foot eventually, just as it will for all of the other positions they've refused to allow be filled.

This is partly why it makes me laugh when you hear the right wing media and GOP base whining about the people they've sent to Washington doing nothing for them. Have they been asleep for the past seven years? Or is it that they think only the people THEY elect should matter when it comes to the give and take of democracy? That only THEIR elected politicians should get everything THEY want, despite the fact that the country overwhelmingly elected and reelected the current president?

Not to mention Obamas filibuster of Alito

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269719-white-house-obama-regrets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee

As a senator from Illinois, Obama and 23 other senators attempted to stage a filibuster to block a confirmation vote on Alito, one of former President George W. Bush's picks to serve on the bench. The filibuster bid failed and Alito was confirmed.

Each side is as bad as the other, its the blatant hypocrisy and double standard of the Dems that I find amusing

[J70]

What an absurd thought, Muppet!!!

Oraisteach.....how closely do you follow the news, or do you just ignore the parts that dont suit you?

3 Senior Democrats...Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are all on record saying a president should not nominate anyone to the supreme court during an election year.  I'll see if I can find the clips for you if you dont believe me

But now that the shoe is on the other foot, theyre frothing at the mouth with indignation-LOL

Get over it....its politics, and a Democratic Senate would be doing exactly the same if it was the final year of a Republican Administration

Except that the current GOP congress, on top of all the rest of their obstructionism, has brought the blocking of justices and other appointments to levels never, ever even approached in the past.

The Dems have rhetoric against them. No one knows if they would have followed through. Politicians are ALWAYS making threats, usually in the hope of influencing or cowing the opposition or as a starting positin. The last time this issue came up, Reagan got his appointment (even the one who was rejected, Bork, before Kennedy's nomination, got hearings and a vote).

The GOP, on the other hand, are intent on actual action (or lack of action). There is NO precedent for what they are doing. But, if they follow through with their threats, they're setting one, and the shoe will be on the other foot eventually, just as it will for all of the other positions they've refused to allow be filled.

This is partly why it makes me laugh when you hear the right wing media and GOP base whining about the people they've sent to Washington doing nothing for them. Have they been asleep for the past seven years? Or is it that they think only the people THEY elect should matter when it comes to the give and take of democracy? That only THEIR elected politicians should get everything THEY want, despite the fact that the country overwhelmingly elected and reelected the current president?

Not to mention Obamas filibuster of Alito

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269719-white-house-obama-regrets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee

As a senator from Illinois, Obama and 23 other senators attempted to stage a filibuster to block a confirmation vote on Alito, one of former President George W. Bush's picks to serve on the bench. The filibuster bid failed and Alito was confirmed.

Each side is as bad as the other, its the blatant hypocrisy and double standard of the Dems that I find amusing

Again, the idea that the GOP won't even entertain (won't even MEET with) ANY nominee is unprecedented. Both sides filibuster, absolutely. Most politicians are indeed hypocrites. It's part of the game. But there has been NOTHING like the GOP's sheer rate of blocking and refusal to consider nominees for ANYTHING before.

[Oraisteach]

Whitey, very very closely.  This obstructionist GOP gang is despicable.  Throw in election stealing and gerrymandering.  Whitey?  Some names hit the nail on the head.