Topic: Could the democrats stop their obstructionism toward infrastructure projects plz (Read 557 times)

It depends on what the politicians think about it. For some politicians, certain policies may be beneficial to the American public. But for some others, the same policies may be detrimental to the American interests. And the Democrats now have incentive to oppose whatever Trump proposes. They can say that it is now payback time, for all the obstruction the GOP had caused earlier.

I thought Trump was all up for the good of the American people, i sincerely believe that when it comes to whats good for the American People, there shouldnt be anything like bipartisan politics. It doesnt bode well for the country.

Then why not let it go to vote? With such an inevitable outcome, why risk the optics, to subvert a forgone conclusion? I hear what you are saying, but why stop that process from happening organically, if that is the procedure in place?

Because they decided that the next President should have this appointment, not the standing POTUS.

Senate Republicans say they will not consider any nominee offered by Mr. Obama to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. The power to appoint Justice Scalia’s successor, they say, should belong to the next president.

That categorical stance is new in the nation’s history, the professors, Robin Bradley Kar and Jason Mazzone, wrote in a study published online by The New York University Law Review. The Senate has never before transferred a president’s appointment power in comparable circumstances to an unknown successor, they said — an argument that many Democratic lawmakers have also made.

In every one of the 103 earlier Supreme Court vacancies, the professors wrote, the president was able to both nominate and appoint a replacement with the Senate’s advice and consent. This did not always happen on the first try, they wrote, but it always happened.

“There really is something unique about the position Republican senators are taking with respect to the Scalia vacancy,” said Professor Mazzone, who teaches at the University of Illinois.

“You really cannot find any single comparable case,” he said. “We really did not find any precedent for the idea, notwithstanding the Senate’s very broad powers in this area, that a sitting president could be denied outright the authority to offer up a nominee who would receive evaluation through normal Senate processes.”

I'm not trying to browbeat or troll y'all, I simply do not think this is fair,.

On February 23, 2016, the 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell stating their intention to withhold consent on any nominee made by President Obama, and that no hearings would occur until after January 20, 2017, when the next president takes office.[47] The 11 members are Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, Iowa;[48] Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, Utah; Jeff Sessions, Alabama; Lindsey Graham, South Carolina; John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, Texas; Jeff Flake, Arizona; David Vitter, Louisiana; David Perdue, Georgia; and Thom Tillis, North Carolina. After Garland's nomination, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reiterated his position that the Senate would not confirm any Supreme Court nomination from Obama.[46] Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017.[49]

And it's interesting to see the same names, it's like a blast from the past. Sessions, Grassley, Graham, and Cruz.

OK. I will explain. Obama tried to nominate a left-wing buffoon to fill the post vacated by Scalia. That would have been fine, if the Democrats were having the majority in the senate. They didn't had the majority. Even if his nomination was put to the vote, Garland would have lost the vote by a big margin.

How would he even have had a chance to be confirmed, had the spot been filled? Come.on man, you really think it was fair for the GOP to hold its nuts on a presidential appointment, and not even let the shit go to vote? That's Democratic to you?


http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/4/obama-slams-senate-gop-blocking-garland-nomination/

President Obama criticized Senate Republicans Tuesday for allowing the Supreme Court to begin its new term with one vacant seat, and the White House addressed the vacancy’s potential impact on the presidential election if the results were thrown into court.

“In a city of self-inflicted wounds, this one is more dangerous and less defensible than most,” Mr. Obama wrote in the Huffington Post. “This is about the obstruction of a broken Republican-led Congress.”

Mr. Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the high court 202 days ago to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But Senate Republicans have refused to hold a confirmation hearing or a vote, saying the next president should choose a nominee.

But who gives a flying fuck about what Obama said? He isn't even a man, according to another post in this space.

This, is where democracy died. Please defend your position.

I still don't understand this "subverting the democracy" part. It is not like Trump had nominated Gorsuch without a vote in the House or Senate. Gorsuch won the senate vote by a 54-45 margin, and you should remember that three Democrat senators also voted for him (Donnelly, Heitkamp, and Manchin). What sort of subversion are you talking about?

Misspoke with decade. Was a provable error borne of exaggeration, my bad.


We would have followed parliamentary procedure, and allowed the Court to exist as the people intend it to. You don't always win. But you do play by the rules, that's what really makes America great. The diverse composition of the Court, through organic acquisition of members, should do just that, represent the democracy, even if it does not represent a citizens best interest at a given time. It's supposed to be dynamic, it's bipartisan on purpose. You get your turn, eventually. But when people cut the line, this breaks down.

But I will concede, the DNC are no angels. But you guys are good for this shit, subverting the democracy for your own ends. We play by the rules, to a fault. It's what's wrong with the party,  they haven't adapted to the current political climate.

You need to remember that Gorsuch is the replacement for Antonin Scalia. If you study their political inclination, then you will find that Gorsuch is much more moderate than Scalia. And then, what was Obama trying to do? He was trying to replace Scalia with another left-wing buffoon, despite the Democrats were not having a majority in the House.

If the situation was just the reverse (GOP president nominating right-wing candidate, with Dem majority in House), how you guys would have reacted?

a decade?

...and as soon as the GOP obtained a majority, you managed to elect Mr Gorsuch. I just think it's funny how fast the process got legs as soon as an appointment served the Republican agenda. No mind of the harm to the State by leaving the Court incomplete for almost a decade.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/neil-gorsuch-abortion-religious-liberty-environment-gun-control/index.html

If this isn't a textbook Conservative, then Obama is a Muslim

So why is it so offensive that the DNC would seek to elect a liberal member fairly through congressional process and be stonewalled, but it is acceptable to elect a conservative member after said stonewall, and after employing the nuclear option (the DNC lacked fillibuster ability, there was no choice). It was simply the will of your party that was made manifest.

Go on

Really? The GOP was in a solid majority in both the Senate and the House, and you guys were still thick enough to nominate ultra-leftist nominees such as Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. After seeing how much damage has been done by leftist judges such as Darth Vader Ginsburg, do you really expect the republicans to continue supporting your pick of left-wing loonies?

We didn't have a supreme Court Justice for two terms because you guys felt obstructionist. You want to keep going about subverting the democracy for bullshit partisanship at the expense of citizen health and safety? Obama care repeal working out good I think it's going bigly, wait til it clears the Senate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-set-to-unveil-a-trump-style-infrastructure-plan/2017/01/23/332be2dc-e1b3-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.9c283032a4d8


A group of senior Senate Democrats on Tuesday unveiled their own $1 trillion plan to revamp the nation’s airports, bridges, roads and seaports, urging President Trump to back their proposal, which they say would create 15 million jobs over 10 years.

The Democrats said their infrastructure plan would rely on ­direct federal spending and would span a range of projects including not only roads and bridges, but also the nation’s broadband network, hospitals run by the Department of Veterans Affairs and schools.

Eager to drive a wedge between the new president and congressional Republicans, Democrats see talk of infrastructure projects as a way to piggyback on Trump’s frequent vows to repair the nation’s crumbling roads and bridges and persuade him to adopt ideas that would put him at odds with GOP leaders, who have done little to embrace what would amount to a major new government spending program.

Advisers to Trump have said they would rely on federal tax credits and public-private partnerships rather than federal spending to pay for a new infrastructure program.

“Our nation’s infrastructure issues are vast, and they go well beyond just road and bridge repair,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement announcing the plan. “Each day, too many students attend school in buildings so decrepit the pipes leach lead into their drinking water, our country’s heroes sit in VA hospitals that are crumbling beneath them, and millions in rural communities cannot kick-start local business because they lack access to the critical high-speed Internet they need.”

And like always, with a few variations, these are very similar budgets (besides that dumb ass wall). The main difference mainly lies in the source of funds, which ideologically is the basis of many a Red vs Blue debate (fed sub vs tax credits).


God, please make Hillary Clinton invisible for a week so we don't have to hear about her old ass. For some reason people think she is still relevant in an election she lost, 4 months later, when we are literally talking about the spectre of impeachment with the standing POTUS. No one gives a fuck about her or Bill We want Trump's orange ass out. You can put him and her on an island, they can' compete Survivor style and eat each other. We don't give a fuck.


The only reasons I attack yalls views on Hillary are:

1) Clinton Propaganda is usually not provable through citation, it always comes back to a hearsay, like the Russia investigation.

2) The shit only comes up on right wing shit. We are so absorbed with villifying Trump, we forgot about Hillary months ago. And, she started talking that dumb shit like she had no responsibility in losing the election, folks aren't trying to hear that shit

3) It's retarded absurd. Bitch ain't running around fucking kids in the ass and eating them. Next please.

4) Yall would believe some of the outlandish shit attributed to the Clintons, yet in the face of obvious dysfunction and ineptitude, Trump is beyond reproach. PizzaGate is more feasible than RussiaGate, yet we are having a federal investigation into one and not the other.. Only time police got involved in PizzaGate was to arrest a simple motherfucker with a gun looking for a basement.

But back to the topic of infrastructure, uh, yes please.

My wish list:

Multiple kill renetry vehicules (MKRV) coupled with a lazer system.
Highspeed road, rails and water ways and airports for planes and drones
Waterpipes...
And a new electrical grid, empresistant and reneweable compatible
New hospitals.


How not to agree for america to have the best infrastructure worldwide? It's stupid to obstruct the new admin... for what? Make america weak to be conquered by some united nations agenda? What a joke, as if the real deep state (aka cog or the patch bearers) could it ever be accept?



Grow up and kick this clinton gang out!