Will You Be Like Bush And Not Criticize Your Successor?; Obama: I Will If "Necessary"

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Reporter to Obama: Will You Be Like Bush And Not Criticize Your Successor?; Obama: I Will If "Necessary"


"Look, I said before, President Bush could not have been more gracious to me when I came in and my intention is to certainly for the next two months, finish my job and after that to take Michelle on vacation, get some rest, spend time with my girls and do some writing, some thinking," Obama said in Peru.

"I want to be respectful of the office and give the president-elect an opportunity to put forward his platform and his arguments without somebody popping off in every instance," Obama said.

"As an American citizen who cares deeply about our country, if there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal but go to core questions about our values and our ideals, and if I think that it is necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, I'll examine it when it comes," the president said.

[clip]

Obama attributed the loss of the House, the Senate, state legislatures and assemblies under his presidency to people not being able to "see the recovery" and and Republicans taking advantage of redistricting and gerrymandering.


right ... could not be Obama Policies .... nope, of course not Republicans could only win by taking advantage of something
 

glhs837

Power with Control
And there it is, the absolute refusal to understand why they lost. Couldn't be because a lot of Americans think you were not headed in the right direction, nope. Ignorance and evil Rs, that has to be it. I was also scared by this bit.....

"Obama also complained that low population Republican states get two Senators just like a highly-populated state like California."
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
"Obama also complained that low population Republican states get two Senators just like a highly-populated state like California."

He is supposedly a Constitutional scholar. The Constitution sets how many Senators a State gets.
He has never understood nor honored the Constitution.
 

GregV814

Well-Known Member
" take Michelle on vacation, get some rest, spend time with my girls and do some writing, some thinking," Obama said in Peru."



Well, its nice that he decided to do some thinking....And poor Michelle hasn't been on vacation for like, 2-3 weeks....and he is writing too....probably a best seller championed only by the Bible.....wow...what a man
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
He is supposedly a Constitutional scholar. The Constitution sets how many Senators a State gets.
He has never understood nor honored the Constitution.

And, those senators are supposed to represent state governments, so that the states have a voice in the federal government so we don't end up with unfunded mandates and such. The 17th amendment removed the voice of the states in our federal government, and needs to be repealed.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
And, those senators are supposed to represent state governments, so that the states have a voice in the federal government so we don't end up with unfunded mandates and such. The 17th amendment removed the voice of the states in our federal government, and needs to be repealed.

Exactly - otherwise, we'd insist that in the United Nations, larger countries would get more votes, because they have more people.
 

tommyjo

New Member
And, those senators are supposed to represent state governments, so that the states have a voice in the federal government so we don't end up with unfunded mandates and such. The 17th amendment removed the voice of the states in our federal government, and needs to be repealed.

That's a rather silly commentary...rather typical.

The 17th amendment changed the election of Senators from the good ole boy network of State legislatures to election by the people. Senators are supposed to represent their constituents, not their state government.

Funding of the govt programs begins in the House not the Senate...so your "unfunded" mandates are not the children of Senators.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
That's a rather silly commentary...rather typical.

The 17th amendment changed the election of Senators from the good ole boy network of State legislatures to election by the people. Senators are supposed to represent their constituents, not their state government.

Funding of the govt programs begins in the House not the Senate...so your "unfunded" mandates are not the children of Senators.

You do understand that state legislatures are made of people elected by the constituents, right? So, your comment about representing the constituents is completely unfounded.

But, state legislatures understand the workings of government in ways that the constituents do not. They understand their budgeting process, etc., in ways "the people" do not.

When, as the constitution originally mandated, the Senate is answerable to the state governments, they worked to ensure the House (answerable to "the people") did not do things that hurt the state governments (thus, the constituents in the long run). For example, the whole Medicare thing, where states are required to fund after federal funding runs out.

With respect to "funding government programs begins in the House" phrase, you're kind of right, but not really. Article One, Section 7 says, "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House...", not for funding government programs. So, if it's a new tax, it originates in the House, but if it is just how money will be spent, it can originate in either house.

That said, the Senate must concur and pass the same legislation as the House to send it on to the president anyway. If the House says, "tell the states they must do this, but provide no funds for it", the Senate (if they were beholden to the state legislatures) would never pass such a bill. But, today, since they are only beholden to the same people that make up the constituents of the House, say, "hellz, yeah, we'll look great at re-election time saying we gave them (whatever)! We don't have to tell 'em their own state is paying for it"
 

Attachments

  • avatar_big_185_1421645461.jpg
    avatar_big_185_1421645461.jpg
    8.6 KB · Views: 183

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
You do understand that state legislatures are made of people elected by the constituents, right? So, your comment about representing the constituents is completely unfounded.

But, state legislatures understand the workings of government in ways that the constituents do not. They understand their budgeting process, etc., in ways "the people" do not.

When, as the constitution originally mandated, the Senate is answerable to the state governments

And that they're supposed to represent the interests of their State - and not their party. I'm cool with the idea the Founders created - furthering the concept of states as separate functioning entities.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that our nation is run by people loyal to parties? How is it that we've gone from the Founders who came up with the Constitution, to men whose entire loyalty is to the power their party controls? What would the country be like if parties were irrelevant?
 

Rommey

Well-Known Member
That's a rather silly commentary...rather typical.

The 17th amendment changed the election of Senators from the good ole boy network of State legislatures to election by the people. Senators are supposed to represent their constituents, not their state government.
You know, for someone who comes on this forum and berates others for their supposed ignorance, you sure show enough ignorance to go along with your arrogance. From the US Senate website:
Constitutional Design of the Senate, 1787
The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors' councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate's role was "first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led."

Funding of the govt programs begins in the House not the Senate...so your "unfunded" mandates are not the children of Senators.
Speaking of more ignorance...Unfunded by its definition is something NOT funded, therefore something not necessarily started in the House.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
He has been voted into irrelevance. But he can still make an azz of himself by remaining a permanently offended/offensive black former president.

And, he will. He will be gone, but his ego will remain. We have to listen to his ums and ahs for years to come. No more teleprompters. Obama is so disappointing. Oh well. Moving on with Trump. High hopes, as I had with Obama. God bless, America.
 
Last edited:

littlelady

God bless the USA
You know, for someone who comes on this forum and berates others for their supposed ignorance, you sure show enough ignorance to go along with your arrogance. From the US Senate website:


Speaking of more ignorance...Unfunded by its definition is something NOT funded, therefore something not necessarily started in the House.

:yay:
 
Top