Some facts we shouldn't forget

  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 20, 2015 1:22 PM GMT
    Since the last election;

    The US Senate is 54 Conservatives, 44 Liberals, 2 Independents.
    The US House of Representatives is 247 Conservatives, 188 Democrats.
    That hasn't happened since 1929.

    In regards to the 50 states;
    30 of them currently have Republican governors, Democrats 20
    That has not happened in 15 years for either party.

    Regarding State legislatures and Senates;
    Republicans control 34 state senates, Democrats 16.****
    Republicans control 34 Houses, Democrats 15.
    *** Nebraska has a nominally unicameral legislative branch that is predominantly conservative)

    Republicans control the entire legislative branches in 24 states, Democrats 7.
    19 are split with Republicans holding either the state Houses or Senates.

    With that in mind...
    why is the guy in the White House, a Democrat, insisting Republicans cooperate with him instead of him cooperating with the majorities?

    With elections coming in 18 months there's no rational reason to believe those number will change to favor Democrats other than the White House.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/11/05/republican-sweep-extends-to-state-level/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states
  • Relajado

    Posts: 409

    May 20, 2015 10:33 PM GMT
    Liberal Party in the Senate? Wow no longer a 2 party system!icon_rolleyes.gif

    The Party of No is the side that has to allow compromises to happen.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 20, 2015 11:39 PM GMT
    Relajado saidLiberal Party in the Senate? Wow no longer a 2 party system!icon_rolleyes.gif

    The Party of No is the side that has to allow compromises to happen.


    No dumbass.
    This is a fucking democracy, remember?
    The majority rules. remember?
    Democrats passed ACA into law without reading it and with NO Republican votes because they were the majority in the House and Senate at the time, remember?

    One set of rules, dumbass.... unless you're promoting a socialist dictatorship. If so, say so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2015 11:55 PM GMT
    "..why is the guy in the White House, a Democrat, insisting Republicans cooperate with him instead of him cooperating with the majorities?"

    I'm not sure if it's a rhetorical question or not, so I'll actually answer it.
    So, the "guy in the White House" is the President of the United States, who is actually elected by all eligible voters in the country, unlike Senators who only receive votes by their respective State's eligible voters, and Representatives who only receive votes by their assigned geographical districts as determined by the majority party of the state following major Census publications, which as you pointed out are strongly held by the Republicans in a majority of states currently. In 2010 and 2012, more Americans voted for Democratic candidates for House of Representatives, even as the winners sided for Republicans. Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. So I think you're missing a few contextual statistics when you're referring to "majorities".

    So if you're looking for a country whose President is only an impotent figurehead and all power belongs to the Congress, this isn't that country. At least not how the framers viewed it. In fact, since this particular President is the first one to win a majority of the popular vote twice since 1956, why shouldn't Republicans cooperate with him on national issues that affect all Americans? And in this case, I don't equate cooperation with capitulation. It only means that people listen to each other without starting with brick walls.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2015 12:13 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    1969er saidwhy shouldn't Republicans cooperate with him on national issues that affect all Americans? And in this case, I don't equate cooperation with capitulation. It only means that people listen to each other without starting with brick walls.


    Obama's definition of "cooperate" is clearly different from yours.

    I don't disagree. But then, neither of us can claim what his definition is.
    On the other hand, there was an upstart Republican Senatorial candidate who very unfortunately vocalized his exact definition (more specifically "bipartisanship" as a substitute): http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/richard-mourdock-and-the-gops-idea-of-bipartisanship/2012/05/09/gIQAoaQ8CU_blog.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2015 12:41 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    1969er saidwhy shouldn't Republicans cooperate with him on national issues that affect all Americans? And in this case, I don't equate cooperation with capitulation. It only means that people listen to each other without starting with brick walls.


    Obama's definition of "cooperate" is clearly different from yours.

    Obama definition: My way or the highway. He and the Democrats accepted no Republican suggestions for Obamacare (e.g. tort reform and insurance portability across state lines). Would have impacted their special interest groups.

    In refusing to consider the Republican suggestions, Obama said "elections have consequences". After Republicans took control of both houses in Congress, Obama and the Congressional Democrats sang a different tune: "Let's work together." Even that wasn't sincere, as Obama said if Congress did not do [exactly] as he pleased, he would go around them with Executive Orders of dubious legality.

    Fact is the broom sweeps both ways. Congressional elections have consequences, too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2015 5:50 PM GMT
    1969er said In fact, since this particular President is the first one to win a majority of the popular vote twice since 1956, why shouldn't Republicans cooperate with him on national issues that affect all Americans?


    A rather important fact (i.e. a win by popular vote of the entire nation), which 'independent' Bob3 conveniently forgot to include in his 'balance of power' summary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2015 8:02 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidFact is the broom sweeps both ways. Congressional elections have consequences, too.


    Apparently not. But whine away while I try to forget every hold and filibuster on nominations for the past seven years. Every vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Every fucking policy vote about abortion, religious freedom, infrastructure, defense, veterans.

    So, your point is about politics. But be specific: which policies of the Republicans do you support? Tell me what Republicans are doing right. Tell me how the State Legislatures are getting it right. Tell me about Republican controlled budgets, and how each of these red states' economies are doing. Dear god, tell me how trickle down economics works.

    Put in your Republican president, fill both Houses of the Legislature with Republicans and run the country how you want. Until then, a democratically elected President who was put into his position by a majority of Americans--twice--is tasked with being a check and balance on your majority-of-a-minority-elected representatives (with their salamander-shaped congressional districts). I'm sure you're jazzed about your clown bus's chances against Hillary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2015 8:06 PM GMT
    bobbobbob saidSince the last election;

    The US Senate is 54 Conservatives, 44 Liberals, 2 Independents.
    The US House of Representatives is 247 Conservatives, 188 Democrats.
    That hasn't happened since 1929.


    Actually, none of this has happened. There are only Republicans, Democrats and Independents. There are actually quite a few conservative Democrats. Not so many liberal Republicans, but they never really had a big tent anyway.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 21, 2015 8:17 PM GMT
    1969er said
    I'm not sure if it's a rhetorical question or not, so I'll actually answer it.
    So, the "guy in the White House" is the President of the United States, who is actually elected by all eligible voters in the country, unlike Senators who only receive votes by their respective State's eligible voters, and Representatives who only receive votes by their assigned geographical districts as determined by the majority party of the state following major Census publications, which as you pointed out are strongly held by the Republicans in a majority of states currently. In 2010 and 2012, more Americans voted for Democratic candidates for House of Representatives, even as the winners sided for Republicans. px;">Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. So I think you're missing a few contextual statistics when you're referring to "majorities"..


    ______Democrats got__54,301,095
    minus Republicans got 53,822,442
    Equals___________________478,653 democrats
    divided by 188 in US House+
    46 in Senate _________________237 total seats in both
    __ equals an average of only 2819 more Democrats voting in each of 237 House and Senate elections won out of a total 469 that were up for election.

    And we don't have a democratic form of government. We have a democratic REPUBLIC. That would account for the numbers you cited. There's no electing Senators and Representatives across state lines or congressional districts.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    May 22, 2015 2:43 PM GMT
    BobBobBob

    Let's also never forget the FACT that you call openly proud gay men "SISSY," "QUEEN," "QUEER" and "FAGGOT" in a vitriolic and pejorative sense.

    Your homophobia, transphobia and misogyny is forever documented in RJ history because I and others 'quote'ed your posts--so you can't go and white-wash them now.

    Bob3 is a bigot.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 22, 2015 4:38 PM GMT
    1969er said".In fact, since this particular President is the first one to win a majority of the popular vote twice since 1956, why shouldn't



    LIAR ☝ BULLSHIT ☝ LIAR ☝
    Here's another liar. Why the fuck would anyone tell a lie like that and not expect to be caught?

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html

  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    May 22, 2015 4:46 PM GMT
    BobBobBob

    Let's also never forget the FACT that you call openly proud gay men "SISSY," "QUEEN," "QUEER" and "FAGGOT" in a vitriolic and pejorative sense.

    Your homophobia, transphobia and misogyny is forever documented in RJ history because I and others 'quote'ed your posts--so you can't go and white-wash them now.

    Bob3 is a bigot. icon_neutral.gificon_neutral.gif
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 22, 2015 5:05 PM GMT
    ho hum...

    The ignorant pissy little lying ballerina cat cunt is cutting and pasting her same bullshit again. The lying bitch has never proven one damned thing her lying ass has ever said.

    All she does is lie...accuse..attack...lie...accuse..attack...lie...accuse..attack... using her same lame cuts and pastes...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2015 5:09 PM GMT
    1969er said"..why is the guy in the White House, a Democrat, insisting Republicans cooperate with him instead of him cooperating with the majorities?"

    I'm not sure if it's a rhetorical question or not, so I'll actually answer it.
    So, the "guy in the White House" is the President of the United States, who is actually elected by all eligible voters in the country, unlike Senators who only receive votes by their respective State's eligible voters, and Representatives who only receive votes by their assigned geographical districts as determined by the majority party of the state following major Census publications, which as you pointed out are strongly held by the Republicans in a majority of states currently. In 2010 and 2012, more Americans voted for Democratic candidates for House of Representatives, even as the winners sided for Republicans. Democrats got 54,301,095 votes while Republicans got 53,822,442. So I think you're missing a few contextual statistics when you're referring to "majorities".

    So if you're looking for a country whose President is only an impotent figurehead and all power belongs to the Congress, this isn't that country. At least not how the framers viewed it. In fact, since this particular President is the first one to win a majority of the popular vote twice since 1956, why shouldn't Republicans cooperate with him on national issues that affect all Americans? And in this case, I don't equate cooperation with capitulation. It only means that people listen to each other without starting with brick walls.


    " In fact, since this particular President is the first one to win a majority of the popular vote twice since 1956"

    I presume you're joking?
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 22, 2015 7:06 PM GMT
    ^^^^^
    I went back to the 1940 on link I gave above. Just another friggin liar trying to reinvent reality.
  • wellwell

    Posts: 2265

    May 22, 2015 7:35 PM GMT
    Has no one ever considered, that bipartisanship equals cowardice ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2015 7:48 PM GMT
    bobbobbob said^^^^^
    I went back to the 1940 on link I gave above. Just another friggin liar trying to reinvent reality.


    I actually wasn't sure if he was serious or not. I mean 1964 and 1984 ???? Talk about blow outs!!!
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 22, 2015 9:33 PM GMT
    wellwell saidHas no one ever considered, that bipartisanship equals cowardice ?


    Bipartisanship is like a bisexual's sex life. Everyone gets fucked and no one gets a real commitment on anything.

    freedomisntfree said
    bobbobbob said^^^^^
    I went back to the 1940 on link I gave above. Just another friggin liar trying to reinvent reality.


    I actually wasn't sure if he was serious or not. I mean 1964 and 1984 ???? Talk about blow outs!!!


    For him to have said that he obviously didn't fact check before he posted. I read that and it didn't sink in until late yesterday.

    If... one the extreme outside chance it was a typo.... then he didn't proofread. That's his fault as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2015 9:50 PM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    The ignorant pissy little lying ballerina cat cunt


    Great job you're doing at convincing people you are not really a bigoted and spiteful mess.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2015 9:51 PM GMT
    bobbobbob said
    wellwell saidHas no one ever considered, that bipartisanship equals cowardice ?


    Bipartisanship is like a bisexual's sex life. Everyone gets fucked and no one gets a real commitment on anything.

    freedomisntfree said
    bobbobbob said^^^^^
    I went back to the 1940 on link I gave above. Just another friggin liar trying to reinvent reality.


    I actually wasn't sure if he was serious or not. I mean 1964 and 1984 ???? Talk about blow outs!!!


    For him to have said that he obviously didn't fact check before he posted. I read that and it didn't sink in until late yesterday.

    If... one the extreme outside chance it was a typo.... then he didn't proofread. That's his fault as well.


    Shouldn't have to. He's plenty old enough to at least know (experienced) 1984.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2015 12:40 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    socalfitness saidFact is the broom sweeps both ways. Congressional elections have consequences, too.


    Apparently not. But whine away while I try to forget every hold and filibuster on nominations for the past seven years. Every vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Every fucking policy vote about abortion, religious freedom, infrastructure, defense, veterans.

    So, your point is about politics. But be specific: which policies of the Republicans do you support? Tell me what Republicans are doing right. Tell me how the State Legislatures are getting it right. Tell me about Republican controlled budgets, and how each of these red states' economies are doing. Dear god, tell me how trickle down economics works.

    Put in your Republican president, fill both Houses of the Legislature with Republicans and run the country how you want. Until then, a democratically elected President who was put into his position by a majority of Americans--twice--is tasked with being a check and balance on your majority-of-a-minority-elected representatives (with their salamander-shaped congressional districts). I'm sure you're jazzed about your clown bus's chances against Hillary.

    With all that ink you spilled, you couldn't comment about the Republican proposals to improve Obamacare that were ignored. And if you support Hillary, then you tolerate her lack of integrity. And if you tolerate lack of integrity in others, then you must tolerate lack of integrity in yourself.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    May 23, 2015 12:58 AM GMT
    Svnw688 saidBobBobBob

    Let's also never forget the FACT that you call openly proud gay men "SISSY," "QUEEN," "QUEER" and "FAGGOT" in a vitriolic and pejorative sense.

    Your homophobia, transphobia and misogyny is forever documented in RJ history because I and others 'quote'ed your posts--so you can't go and white-wash them now.

    Bob3 is a bigot. icon_neutral.gificon_neutral.gif
    You are a blind, brain dead sycophant of the hapless Hillary ho. Now stifle yourself, your stupidity is very irritating.icon_mad.gif
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    May 23, 2015 1:29 PM GMT
    ^^^^
    All that can be accomplished with cut and paste unsubstantiated accusations is to make sure everyone sees what a low life nasty,petty, chickenshit boney butt ballerina queen he is.

    Just think about how long he's been doing this. Has he ever tried to back up anything he's ever accused anyone of? Has that lard ass from England? Has that nasty fat ass egocentric queenie plaid skirt wearing LIAR?

    NO, NO and NO.

    Let them do it. Let them keep reminding everyone what they are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2015 1:46 PM GMT
    bobbobbob said

    Has that lard ass from England?


    Lol. Lard ass? Unlike you, I do not spend all of my spare time writing tedious essays and nit-picking on RJ. I bet I could outrun you any day of the week. I'll give you a head start of course.