Would Republicans allow Democrats to govern?

JoshuaW

Senior Veteran
Aug 21, 2005
2,625
227
✟11,457.00
Faith
Christian
For the past six years Democrats have had no voice in American government, and they expect to regain that voice after the November election.

But during the Clinton administration Republicans fought and impeded every piece of legislation, every appointment offered by the Democrats. They even used their Congressional majority to impeach President Clinton, in the words of Newt Gingrich "because we could".

Republicans have demonstrated they will block even legislation that will benefit the majority of Americans simply because they don't want Democrats to be able to take credit for it, such as national healthcare.

My question, do you believe Republicans would permit Democrats to govern even if they held a majority, even if they regained the White House? Or would they act as they did before 2000, as a subversive force protected by the Constitution. Would Fox News continue to create misinformation, fomenting hate to lay the groundwork for an eventual return of Republican rule?

Democrats have always referred to Republicans as "honorable opponents", Republicans simply consider Democrats as the enemy. I'm beginning to agree with James Carville, who said "when your opponent is drowning, throw the bastard an anvil."
 
  • Like
Reactions: NPH

blueapplepaste

the purpose of life is a life of purpose
Jun 7, 2005
7,290
788
41
Texas
✟18,874.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What is sad is that when Democrats take control of Congress this November and inherit all of the problems caused by Republicans they will instantly be blamed on Democrats by the same Republicans who caused them.

Any attempt by the Dems to fix them will be blocked and held up by the Republicans so they can continue to blame the Dems for the problems they created. It's clear that the Republicans only care about winning, pushing their anti-American legislation, and making their special interests happy.; they don't give a flip about making America better.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,037
13,063
✟1,077,154.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The problems for the Democrats began when the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, due, Clinton has speculated, to Democrats' passing the Brady Bill.

(I am so disappointed in the American electorate....I could respect them if they had ousted the Democrats for a more substantive reason, but assault weapons????? What kind of voters do we have out there, anyway?)

If Clinton's forte wasn't human relations, I don't think he could have remained in office 8 years...but since it was, he dealt with Republicans as best he could, despite their obstructionist tactics.

I wonder if Bush, who has made absolutely no attempts to "reach both sides of the aisle" since 2000, will be similarly conciliatory to Democrats if they take back the House and Senate in November.

I am sure that Republicans will be looking for issues to "hang" the Democrats with if they win in 2006.....

I just hope that if the electorate votes the Democrats out in subsequent years, it would be for a more noble reason than wanting to own assault weapons. Yuck!

What's wrong with the American electorate?
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,456
1,441
56
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
What is sad is that when Democrats take control of Congress this November and inherit all of the problems caused by Republicans they will instantly be blamed on Democrats by the same Republicans who caused them.

Any attempt by the Dems to fix them will be blocked and held up by the Republicans so they can continue to blame the Dems for the problems they created. It's clear that the Republicans only care about winning, pushing their anti-American legislation, and making their special interests happy.; they don't give a flip about making America better.
The same exact case can easily be made about the Democrats. Honestly, neither party gives a rip about the country any more. They are just in it for the money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vatuck
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,456
1,441
56
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I think I'm missing...something here.

Democrats do have a voice. They just ran a Republican out of Congress.
I watched that. The Republicans voted in Ruth Bader Ginsburg without a problem. This is the same woman who on record has said she is for lowering the age of consent for sexual relations to 12. 12!!!! Yet Chief Justice Roberts nearly gets filibustered by Shumer and Chappaquidikennedy because he has "deeply held beliefs" i.e., he is a church-going Catholic. What a bunch of stinking hyporcrites.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,037
13,063
✟1,077,154.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I watched that. The Republicans voted in Ruth Bader Ginsburg without a problem. This is the same woman who on record has said she is for lowering the age of consent for sexual relations to 12. 12!!!! Yet Chief Justice Roberts nearly gets filibustered by Shumer and Chappaquidikennedy because he has "deeply held beliefs" i.e., he is a church-going Catholic. What a bunch of stinking hyporcrites.

There are ten commandments.

Having strict moral standards in regards to sexual matters does not necessarily translate into having high moral standards in non-sexual matters.

We don't have a Supreme "Sex Cases" Court and a Supreme "All Other Cases" Court.

I would gladly support a justice with strict moral standards in regards to sexual matters if his/her conscience were just as strict in issues of social justice and individual rights.

It disappoints me that so many don't look beyond abortion to see how our Constitution as a whole will fare with some judicial candidates.
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,456
1,441
56
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
There are ten commandments.

Having strict moral standards in regards to sexual matters does not necessarily translate into having high moral standards in non-sexual matters.

We don't have a Supreme "Sex Cases" Court and a Supreme "All Other Cases" Court.

I would gladly support a justice with strict moral standards in regards to sexual matters if his/her conscience were just as strict in issues of social justice and individual rights.

It disappoints me that so many don't look beyond abortion to see how our Constitution as a whole will fare with some judicial candidates.
Then what was all the hubbub about with regards to Roberts and Alito? They are a couple of Boy Scouts. The way the Democrats on the judiciary committee treated them, you would think Bush nominated Charles Manson for the SC. :|
 
Upvote 0

Alabaster

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2005
1,047
78
50
✟1,684.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Then what was all the hubbub about with regards to Roberts and Alito? They are a couple of Boy Scouts. The way the Democrats on the judiciary committee treated them, you would think Bush nominated Charles Manson for the SC. :|

I am curious about something. Can you quote, with a source (preferably reputable), an argument used by one of the Democrats on the judiciary committee against the selection of Justices Alito or Roberts?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Glaz

Obama '08
Jun 22, 2004
6,233
552
✟24,137.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Politics 101: The majority party takes credit for everything good that happens and lays the blame for anything bad that happens on the minority party and past leaders. The idea is to get people to believe that you're only responsible for the good things that happen and that the bad things are someone elses fault. I'm hoping the Democrats will actually try to take the high road and not play this game, but judging form the OP, I guess the old saying is true : the more things change, the more they stay the same.:help:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,456
1,441
56
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I am curious about something. Can you quote, with a source (preferably reputable), an argument used by one of the Democrats on the judiciary committee against the selection of Justices Alito or Roberts?
Sure, easier to just cite the Senate voting record. Who cares what their arguements were, its public record that they voted "no".
 
Upvote 0

ScottBot

Revolutionary
May 2, 2005
50,456
1,441
56
a state of desperation
✟57,712.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Thank God :thumbsup:

What a dangerous man.
Really? Just how so? Because he was effective at raising money? Because he was fervently pro-life? Because he knew how to drum up support for the congressional agenda? Just HOW was Tom Delay dangerous?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Alabaster

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2005
1,047
78
50
✟1,684.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I am curious about something. Can you quote, with a source (preferably reputable), an argument used by one of the Democrats on the judiciary committee against the selection of Justices Alito or Roberts?

Sure, easier to just cite the Senate voting record. Who cares what their arguements were, its public record that they voted "no".

Ok, just to clear up definitions, an argument is “A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood”

A vote is a recorded decision, often related to government as it is in this case, based on the arguments made. You are equating two things that could not be more different. A vote is essentially a denouement of an argument.

Secondly, what you said was…

“Then what was all the hubbub about with regards to Roberts and Alito? They are a couple of Boy Scouts. The way the Democrats on the judiciary committee treated them, you would think Bush nominated Charles Manson for the SC.“

Are you claiming that voting against selection is mistreatment? What were the arguments against the selection of Justices Alito and Roberts? In order to arrive at the conclusion that the Justices were mistreated in their nomination process I assumed that you have made an analysis of the actions involved. Therefore I am looking for demonstrable facts that this is the case.
 
Upvote 0