Another terrible jobs number

In addition, wages have been stagnant for the middle class for 40 years, not 10.

 

All you have is bullsh!t, as usual.

 

It was an interesting tactic by Republicans to not come up with any new ideas but to just block Obama at every turn.

It has increased the anger amongst their base, but hasn't regained them the white house. Now they have a guy like Donald Trump holding the lead for their party.

They won some congressional elections, and it cost them some congressional elections where tea party candidates helped Democrats get elected. But I think their overall numbers in congress have increased.

But look at their party and the shape its in for the presidential run. They have every opportunity to win given who their possible opponents are, but they also have a huge chance of shooting themselves in the foot.

It was a strange strategy with possibly unintended results.

 

Definitely, the pure obstruction strategy backfired. Would have been nice had the GOP just decided to negotiate in good faith and just focus on getting the US economy back on track. In their cynicism, they played with fire.

 

I always wondered...

Had Speaker John Boehner gone through back in 2009 with his "Grand Bargain" with the President...

...and subsequently "exposed" how "distrustful" and "arrogant" and "narcissistic" the President was...how "difficult" it was to work with President Obama was...how the President seemed to overreach in his negotiations with Speaker Boehner and House Republicans...

...(several reports indicate that, at the very least, the President was operating with a sense of purpose--or "mandate"--that none of the Republicans in the House or Senate were at all pleased or agreed with)...

...how that might have played in any narrative bid to establish how "unqualified" for the job President Obama was (and still is to some people)...

..most of the Senate and House Republicans at the time were old hats with negotiating tactics, as far as what goes on to get things passed into law in Congress.

Had they not been so entrenched and committed to such overt obstructionism...they might arguably have gotten their way in 2012 with unseating the President...

...kind of went that way for George H.W. Bush, losing to Bill Clinton after one term (and raising taxes)...

...of course, that is if you could sell anybody on the idea that he wasn't actually there as an illegitimate Kenyan, there to usurp the nation and turn it into a communist bloc with Islamic flags flying everywhere, and people taking pictures of the new Muslim state with their free Obamaphones...

 

I'm not sure how you can say it didn't work.

Look at the results. Republicans have their largest house majority since before World War II and gained control of the US Senate.

They also decimated Democrats at the state level. They know control the vast majority of state houses and statewide offices which in turn helps when it comes to drawing district lines (so they more or less insulate themselves from losing for a couple of decades) It took the tea party to finally break the Democratic Party in the South. All of the remaining Southern states (Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, West Virginia) saw historic Democratic control of one or both houses finally collapse. The only state left in the region is Kentucky and I wouldn't be shocked if Democrats lose control of the House in the next election.

Yes the Republicans havent wont the presidency but they've practically won everything else at this point.

 

Couldn't you argue that the Citizens United decision has had just as much, if not more, of an influence in creating such a power shift? It's hard to believe that a gridlock plan designed to win back the presidency for the Republicans in 2012 could fail to achieve that objective yet have such an effective trickle down effect like this.

 

I think its also a factor of human nature. Most if not all people want a President that represents the best of values... and at the local levels they tend to vote selfishly with the wallet.

So while Citizens United, and redistricting has escalated the local power of candidates that represent a voters (local) selfish interests, the President is still seen as someone that people want their father (or mother) to be more like.

 

I didn't say it didn't work in terms of elections. I said it backfired. Many of those elected didn't tow the party line and ultimately cost John Boehner his position. Now the Republican elite, who cynically played on the anger of their base, have lost control of the main candidates for presidency. Even establishment stalwarts like the Koch brothers are sitting it out waiting to see if Trump or Cruz win, candidates no one at the top of the GOP even like.

 

Gridlock was not designed to take back the Presidency, it was designed to use the Democratic President as a scapegoat to foist all blame on (see Big Puffery above) and preserve the tax laws and banking regulations gained under the Bush and Clinton administrations. Because the 1% are making out like bandits.

I think it's one reason all the GOP candidates are so cartoonish. If the GOP actually won the Executive, and held both the House and Senate, they would have to accept responsibility for governing and there would be a better chance that the local election pendulum would shift.
As it stands, even though the Executive actually controls little about legislation, it takes all the campaign criticism for anything,

 

What I said was eminently logical. All you have is bullsh!t, which is clearly illustrated by the fact that you haven't provided so much as a single shred of evidence to support your contentions. Your entire commentary consists of tossing turds from Bullsh!t Mountain.

I'm sorry that slightly off-color language puts sand in your vagina, but if this is the case, perhaps political discussion is too stressful for you.

 

why don't you just post some evidence of your assertions, instead of the usual schtick? maybe you could actually have some people change their mind, if they don't initially agree with you.

 

Boom? More like, piff.

texx, you do know the difference between an editorial and an news article, no? And one driven by the partisan JEC? One that cherry picks data, and falls into the same "participation" trap by ignoring the the length of time "participation" rates have fallen and ignoring the more significant impacts such as changing demographics? This has all been pointed out to you previously. But you continue to present old, tired, and incorrect ideas.

So again, take some time off and come up with some of those "easy" ideas. Here's one you might consider... increasing labor participation among young African Americans and Hispanic Americans? Increasing access to higher education for these two groups which will increase the transferable skills. Why don't you give that problem some thought and come up with new ideas on how to solve it?

 

This particular line is rich:

Have people forgotten why the deepest financial recession in decades happened?

Texxx, want to talk about how the free market failed and a socialist bailed it out--and now the problem is that he was too socialist

 

Better than ignoring data

Still think corporate inversions "must cause job losses?" or that "high corporate taxes are a massive drag on American economic growth?"

I have noticed you shifting away from that schtick as part of your moving goalposts gig

 

Of course, I am doing far more than cussing, including posting original statistical analyses.

When all you can do is spout unfounded assertions, you've lost the argument. Based on this criteria, you lost all arguments around 2001, according to the evidence.