obstruction is a feature of our system, not a bug in school it was called "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" it ensures a large consensus is required to make big changes of course, much of it can be (unfortunately) bypassed with executive action
No it is not. The designed feature is to have check and balance, not obstruction. Obstruction is an unfortunate bug of that designed feature. It's frankly a very understandable bug - those folks a few hundred years ago and even more recently couldn't imagine this level of obstruction would come up. But back to your point. And somehow this bug of the feature will go away when Clinton is elected? Other than your imagination, how are you coming to that conclusion?
based on how the DoJ/State Dept. covered up both her gross mishandling of classified information as well as her accepting donations to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments while acting as a government official
I don't see what's great about that. That's what paid advertisement is for. Good journalism provides analysis of the events that are transpiring to help people contextualize and understand them.
According to Trump's campaign manager, it's not a lie if you don't know: “We were asking why he lied about Lester Holt.” “I don’t think he lied,” Conway said. “Um, I think he did,” said Brzezinski. “Mika, a lie would mean he knew the man’s party registration,” argued Conway. “So as president, would he say things that are false without knowing the truth?” asked a disbelieving Halperin. Unfortunately, co-host Joe Scarborough cut in then to wrap up the discussion, and he never got an answer.
Obstruction = checks and balances. It is not the job of the executive branch to write laws and the fact that the legislative branch is not rubber stamping Obama's agendas is EXACTLY how our government is supposed to work. The Democratic leadership in congress is too weak to ignore Obama and make legislation that might pass is as much of the problem as anything to do with the majority "obstructing" anything. If Obama decides to veto a piece of legislation that was passed by the Republican majority is he "obstructing" or doing his job?
Of course not everyone agree with this. But even if that's true, how is it that DoJ/State Dept = entire government? And what about the media?
I plan on taking a drink every time either one of them lies... I expect to be dead by the end of the first question.
I hope they both lose the debate and the american people force congress into an emergency session to vote on cancelling this years election. give biden or ryan interim for 1 year while both parties find and elect suitable candidates.
Dude, as others pointed out, obstruction in this term is check and balances. That is the exact point. There were no 'folks back a few hundred years ago'. The folks a couple hundred years ago spend days and weeks in this same type of obstruction back when they were building this Constitution. What they wanted to prevent was a two party system bought and paid for by the elite who had the power to give the American people only two candidates.
Don't worry, if the Republicans ever take back control of the white house all of a sudden Democrats everywhere will suddenly remember how government is supposed to work and they'll go back to trying to stand in the way of bills they don't like and trying to stall programs they don't like and don't think are positive for the country. Once the talking points change, magically so will the opinions of the very people you are arguing with now......hopefully your opinion on the subject will remain the same.
hilarious until you realize one of them will hold the highest office in our country and represent all of us to the rest of the world
Trump is going to win the first debate. The media wants this to be "can't miss" coverage and that requires Trump to win the debate and the media to declare it is a dead heat or Trump is up now.
Partly. Unfortunately, they aren't mainstream in the sense of viewers and influence that cable news like CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are.
I understand what check and balance is. Obstruction isn't what they wanted. For example, I don't think they imagine that Congress wouldn't even consider working with the executive branch on a supreme court nomination. They would imagine a President select a candidate and Congress, through it's responsibility, would do the vetting, hearing, debate and vote on the nominee. That's a good check and balance system. Not doing Congress's job of vetting, hearing, debate and finally vote if it get there is obstruction.
In fact, that's EXACTLY what they wanted. If Congress and the White House are that far apart in what they believe to be the right thing, the system is set up to where nothing happens as a safeguard. This encourages politicians to work towards the middle ground and find compromise. Good presidents find a way to make this happen, ideologues don't. When congress doesn't give a candidate a hearing, it's saying that the candidate is unfit for a hearing, and thus doing their job. Again, what you call "obstruction" now, you would have praised if the situation were reversed.
