Oh really? https://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/2014-elections-anti-obamacare-democrats-110237 Thirty-four House Democrats bucked their party to vote against Obamacare when it passed in 2010. So Obama just changed and it had nothing to do with Republicans obstruction. He did not leave appointments open McConell blocked them. U.S. President Barack Obama nominated over four hundred individuals for federal judgeships during his presidency. Of these nominations, Congress confirmed 329 judgeships, 173 during the 111th & 112th Congresses[1] and 156 during the 113th and 114th Congresses.[2] The most potent filibustering of Obama's nominees occurred in the Republican controlled 114th Congress. Obama nominated 69 people for 104 different federal appellate judgeships during this Congress, and although some nominees were processed by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee, many of them stalled on the floor of the Senate. With the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016, in the thick of a presidential election year, the Republican majority in the Senate made it their stated policy to refuse to consider any nominee to the Supreme Court put forward by Obama, arguing that the next president should be the one to appoint Scalia's replacement. Scalia's death was only the second death of a serving justice in a span of sixty years.[3] Even while Democrats still controlled the Senate (2009-2014), Republicans filibustered many nominees, and Senator Chuck Grassley commented that more nominees could have been confirmed had Obama respected recess appointment precedent by not making recess appointments while the Senate was in session.[4] Although Obama never used a recess appointment to appoint a nominee to the federal bench, he had appointed some executive agency officials in January 2012. As a response to the continuing blocking of several of Obama's nominees, Senator Harry Reid on November 21, 2013, invoked the so-called nuclear option and changed the Senate rules, meaning that a simple majority vote would suffice for all nominees except for the Supreme Court. This significantly sped up the pace of confirmations during 2014, especially to the district courts. This revisionist history is bullshit.
Thats not how it was and he never had the wind at his back in the House he had pushback from democrats, he could have tabled ACA all together if he was not adamant about making a change. No president can run through anything and should not especially if everyone in their own party is not onboard. Where the hell are you getting this from?
Thank you. WTF is going on around here, have the people forgotten what McConnell did in the senate or do they just think the President has all this power? Man its worse than I thought do the Bernie folks have some kind of Fox news equivalent I don't know of?
No they gave up PO so they could get ACA passed they did not have the votes in there own caucus. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0363 Senate Democrats were engaged in a highly contentious debate throughout the fall of 2009, and the political life of the public option changed almost daily. The debate reached a critical impasse in November 2009, when Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), who usually caucuses with the Democrats, threatened to filibuster the Senate bill if it included a public option. Do you not actually know this?
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/ne...ers-surging-in-Texas-three-weeks-15013485.php The Vermont Senator and self-described Democratic socialist has jumped to second in the state, cutting former Vice President Joe Biden’s lead to just two percentage points, according to a new Texas Lyceum poll released on Wednesday. Biden still leads the pack of Democratic presidential contenders at 28 percent, though his lead over Sanders — who stood at 26 percent — was within the poll’s 2.8 percentage point margin of error. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts senator who lived for a decade in Texas
Hillary didn't lose that election on policy. She lost that election because of all the baggage she carried and people didn't trust her. They saw her as a liar , a cheat , beholden to wall street and generally entitled.
The act of thinking other people don't know what they are talking about all the time is pretentious. Pretentious has a broader meaning than that strict dictionary definition you gave. https://www.yourdictionary.com/pretentious 2. Showing or betraying an attitude of superiority: made pretentious remarks about his education.
Holy ****, you're going to criticize the poster who is responding to the poster who initial brought up Clinton first? Why not police your own?
I was responding to the idea that a moderate cant win. "If Hillary cant win" .... Its fairly factual to call Hillary a moderate on policy .... but policy isn't why she didn't win , it was the baggage she brought along for the ride.
I disagree somewhat. From my perspective she didn’t really stand for anything during the campaign. She didn’t really take a stand on healthcare or anything but played it super safe. The baggage was certainly an issue, but a bit overblown considering a lot of it was a multi year character assassination by the GOP.
Pot meet kettle. I have never claimed superiority to any poster, I have never talked about my education. The thing I push back on is the Bernie Bros acting like they have superior knowledge on health care or that they know what this country needs. You also have you all throwing around the boomer tag which is definitely pretentious.
I don't see how it can be overblown just because it too multiple years to take root. I agree that playing it safe was an issue but the character assassination was the big issue IMO.
Not from my perspective as I took a lot of the character assassination as political. I actually respect Hillary’s background and upbringing more so than many candidates in 2016 and 2020. I think having a clearer policy could have overcome the rest. She played it safe and ended up standing up for nothing during an environment in which that wasn’t a smart play.
I get it, I just think if Hillary ran a better campaign ( not safe) then she would have won. The margins were that small.
Like I said , whether it was factual or not people believed it , and most of it "had some basis in reality." Uranium one - she was involved with. Emailgate - big to do .... about nothing. Benghazi - happened on her watch. Clinton Foundation - Haiti and ... The millions they were getting for "speaking" at Wallstreet events. I'm sure I'm leaving something out ....
