Is it not time that the US elected someone other than an acting President?

[EpiscipalMe]

In some areas, more votes turned up than there were eligible voters. We know Coleman won.

All we know is that Coleman conceded and Franken was a senator. The rest are theories. Conservatives claim a stolen election, liberals claim otherwise.

You got me mixed up with someone else who said Trump has done things we waited decades for.

Sorry about that.

Congress doesn't have to blindly support anything, but if they don't, that argument about Trump's party being in power goes out the window.

Trump is a Republican and therefore it is “his” party - as in the party he belongs too. However, while he does get the majority of his party to support him, he has not gotten 100% of its support. Obama didn’t get 100% support from his party either.

 

[AFC]

All we know is that Coleman conceded and Franken was a senator. The rest are theories. Conservatives claim a stolen election, liberals claim otherwise.



Sorry about that.



Trump is a Republican and therefore it is “his” party - as in the party he belongs too. However, while he does get the majority of his party to support him, he has not gotten 100% of its support. Obama didn’t get 100% support from his party either.

Obama got the full support of his party to pass the only major piece of legislation he got through, the ACA, something I wish he had failed at. My insurance rates have skyrocketed since they passed that awful bill.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Obama got the full support of his party to pass the only major piece of legislation he got through, the ACA, something I wish he had failed at. My insurance rates have skyrocketed since they passed that awful bill.

Yeah - and he got support with lengthy negotiations.

Trump just dictates and expects people to fall in line.

 

[Belk]

Obama got the full support of his party to pass the only major piece of legislation he got through, the ACA, something I wish he had failed at. My insurance rates have skyrocketed since they passed that awful bill.

No he didn't. He had to do a lot of negotiating and maneuvering to get the support of his party.

 

[AFC]

Yeah - and he got support with lengthy negotiations.

Trump just dictates and expects people to fall in line.

The reason for the lengthy negotiations was nationwide hatred for it and protests, yet to give Obama a legislative win, unprincipled lawmakers rammed a bad bill through.

 

[wing2000]

...guess Obama should have declared a National Emergency and ordered the military to provide health care to all Americans.

 

[AFC]

...guess Obama should have declared a National Emergency and ordered the military to provide health care to all Americans.

And started a civil war doing it. He doesn't have that kind of power.

 

[wing2000]

And started a civil war doing it. He doesn't have that kind of power.

<sarcasm> but seriously, you might be surprised how much power a President has once he declares a "national emergency"

 

[EpiscipalMe]

The reason for the lengthy negotiations was nationwide hatred for it and protests, yet to give Obama a legislative win, unprincipled lawmakers rammed a bad bill through.

There were concessions made to appease those legislators. I’m sorry you hate the bill, but so be it.

Ironically with regard to you explanation though, there are protests against the wall and only a minority of people want it. So, if it was unprincipled of the Democrats to support the ACA, wouldn’t the same logic make it unprincipled for the Republicans to support the wall?

 

[AFC]

There were concessions made to appease those legislators. I’m sorry you hate the bill, but so be it.

Ironically with regard to you explanation though, there are protests against the wall and only a minority of people want it. So, if it was unprincipled of the Democrats to support the ACA, wouldn’t the same logic make it unprincipled for the Republicans to support the wall?

What made it unprincipled wasn't the lack of support, but knowing it was a bad bill. The wall is a matter of national security.

 

[AFC]

There were concessions made to appease those legislators. I’m sorry you hate the bill, but so be it.

Ironically with regard to you explanation though, there are protests against the wall and only a minority of people want it. So, if it was unprincipled of the Democrats to support the ACA, wouldn’t the same logic make it unprincipled for the Republicans to support the wall?

There were some that voted for the ACA that didn't know it was bad. They chose to roll the dice to see what was in it.

 

[wing2000]

The wall is a matter of national security.

How so?

 

[TheBear]

Oh, look. Another "Orange Man Bad" thread!

 

[EpiscipalMe]

What made it unprincipled wasn't the lack of support, but knowing it was a bad bill. The wall is a matter of national security.

You think ACA was a bad bill. Others think the wall is a bad bill.

And, I would say that our health insurance system was broken before ACA (still is in many respects) and immigration policy is broken.

Different administrations, different priorities.

National security make be an issue, but that does not make the wall a good bill.

 

[SarahsKnight]

but that does not make the wall a good bill.

Sure it's a good bill. ... I mean, for assuaging one's manufactured fears of brown people, anyway.

 

[KCfromNC]

Obama got the full support of his party to pass the only major piece of legislation he got through, the ACA, something I wish he had failed at. My insurance rates have skyrocketed since they passed that awful bill.

I'm always amused that we're just supposed to forget how much they were going up before the ACA, as if the start of health care inflation was in 2010 or whatever. Who is the target audience for this sort of narrative?

 

[KCfromNC]

What made it unprincipled wasn't the lack of support, but knowing it was a bad bill. The wall is a matter of national security.

Same question here. National Security? Who is really going to fall for that kind of line?

 

[cow451]

I'm always amused that we're just supposed to forget how much they were going up before the ACA, as if the start of health care inflation was in 2010 or whatever. Who is the target audience for this sort of narrative?

Before the ACA healthcare was available virtually free any place anytime.

 

[grasping the after wind]

He had his own party in control of both the House and Senate for the past two years. Obama got the ACA through with that situation. Trump could have gotten a lot done but squandered his time and now he has a divided Congress.

Obama got ACA through with a filibuster proof Senate. The ACA ,a program so horribly flawed
the people of Massachusetts ,who do not tend to be a right leaning group, elected a Republican to the Senate in an effort to derail it. Additionally the Democrats actually supported the things Obama wanted to do while the Republicans with what Trump wants to do , not so much. After two years with Trump in office, the country IMO is in much better place economically and in terms of foreign policy than it was at any time during the previous administration. How much of the economy one can claim to be because of Trump is debatable but certainly the climate for private enterprise over the last two years is vastly more helpful than it was previously.

 

[Ringo84]

After two years with Trump in office, the country IMO is in much better place economically and in terms of foreign policy than it was at any time during the previous administration.

That's in spite of, not because of, his "alternatively intelligenced" policies like picking fights with trade partners (tariffs), shutdowns, and tantrums over walls.

He inherited Obama's economy, which has so far managed to deliver good things. If he continues on his present course, though, it likely won't.
Ringo