theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 More contradictions from the Messiah, this in 2011...“I just have to continue to say, this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true,” he said. “We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.”And again, just last year...“If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so….What I’m proposing is the harder path which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve.”You can practically taste the duck. Tastes pretty lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Manderly Posted November 17, 2014 Author Share Posted November 17, 2014 When Landrieu losses her run off, we'll be able to get the 60 votes to veto the veto A presidential veto can only be undone by a two thirds majority in both Houses of Congress; the 60 votes is for ending a Senate filibuster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 A presidential veto can only be undone by a two thirds majority in both Houses of Congress; the 60 votes is for ending a Senate filibuster.The senate would need 67 votes to overturn. That's if they all vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I'm sure some dems wanting to keep their seat would either abstain or vote for overturning the veto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I think it's an unethical category of visa, since the worker is entirely dependent on the company's good will to say in the US while working. The whole thing is rife for labor abuses, and there have been plenty of claims of that happening. If we want more skilled and educated immigrants, we should just create more green cards for them to get - or temporary work visas that let them work wherever in the country. I tend to agree, and I also think that the real motivation for pushing expansion of the program isn't that tech companies "can't find skilled US workers" but rather that they "can't find skilled US workers" at a wage they feel like paying, to which the solution is to for the going rate for those positions to adjust to what the market will bear. Funnily enough, people who are otherwise nominally in favor of the "free market" don't seem interested in market forces when it comes to their employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I tend to agree, and I also think that the real motivation for pushing expansion of the program isn't that tech companies "can't find skilled US workers" but rather that they "can't find skilled US workers" at a wage they feel like paying, to which the solution is to for the going rate for those positions to adjust to what the market will bear. Funnily enough, people who are otherwise nominally in favor of the "free market" don't seem interested in market forces when it comes to their employees. This has been the case this whole time in virtually every industry. There is no skill shortage. If there was, we'd see rising wages. What's happening instead is, as you saw, alot of companies complaining that they can't get people to work for the wages they want to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Yeah, using a phone for posting is fun. You don't use your Obama phone to post? :rofl: You can be entertaining, prince, I'll give you that -So it's your assertion that Obama hasn't faced unprecedented obstructionism? I would be interested to hear what you would consider comparable? I always thought Chuck Todd had a good take on this: -In addition there is no "amnesty" going on here. It's a loaded term in regards to immigration and once again a President has the "constitutional responsibility to decide how to enforce laws and focus scarce enforcement resources."-"Unprecedented"? I find that unlikely. And even if that were so, it wouldn't justify executive power grabs. I think partisanship and a lack of perspective are driving these complaints, pure and simple. We both know you wouldn't mind Democrats "obstructing" President Romney. If the Congress passed an immigration bill that instituted harsher penalties, increased deportation, beefed up border security, etc. and the President vetoed it, would he also be guilty of "obstructionism"? The Republicans have won control over the legislative branch, so it appears even the voters are being "obstructionist" now -No matter how you shake it, it amounts to him skirting Congress on a major issue that provokes strong passions in the electorate. Legality aside, he has no mandate to do this. I don't recall George W. Bush facing eight years of obstruction. He enjoyed a period of political consensus that hasn't been replicated under Obama, but that was because of 9/11. And a lot of damage was done in those years when Bush had free reign. If only the democrats had been "obstructionist" about torture, Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, etc, the country would be better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fallen Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I tend to agree, and I also think that the real motivation for pushing expansion of the program isn't that tech companies "can't find skilled US workers" but rather that they "can't find skilled US workers" at a wage they feel like paying, to which the solution is to for the going rate for those positions to adjust to what the market will bear. Funnily enough, people who are otherwise nominally in favor of the "free market" don't seem interested in market forces when it comes to their employees.This has been the case this whole time in virtually every industry. There is no skill shortage. If there was, we'd see rising wages. What's happening instead is, as you saw, alot of companies complaining that they can't get people to work for the wages they want to pay.Absolutely. They do the same even with jobs like customer service rep, which actually get outsourced. As if you couldn't find enough people in this country that can work a phone and computer.This has been the case this whole time in virtually every industry. There is no skill shortage. If there was, we'd see rising wages. What's happening instead is, as you saw, alot of companies complaining that they can't get people to work for the wages they want to pay.Absolutely. They do the same even with jobs like customer service rep, which actually get outsourced. As if there aren't enough people in this country that can work a phone and computer.:rofl: You can be entertaining, prince, I'll give you thatHe can be. Except I don't know whether to laugh or cry. -"Unprecedented"? I find that unlikely. And even if that were so, it wouldn't justify executive power grabs. I think partisanship and a lack of perspective are driving these complaints, pure and simple. We both know you wouldn't mind Democrats "obstructing" President Romney. If the Congress passed an immigration bill that instituted harsher penalties, increased deportation, beefed up border security, etc. and the President vetoed it, would he also be guilty of "obstructionism"? The Republicans have won control over the legislative branch, so it appears even the voters are being "obstructionist" now -No matter how you shake it, it amounts to him skirting Congress on a major issue that provokes strong passions in the electorate. Legality aside, he has no mandate to do this. He enjoyed a period of political consensus that hasn't been replicated under Obama, but that was because of 9/11. And a lot of damage was done in those years when Bush had free reign. If only the democrats had been "obstructionist" about torture, Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, etc, the country would be better off. The difference is that the Democrats didn't huddle up and decide they weren't going to obstruct. They did their jobs and governed. The Republicans didn't even make an attempt. And conservatives love throwing the mandate word around. What happened to mandate when Obama won a landslide victory?Also, you complain about a lot of Bush's policies, but if you voted to reelect him then all your complaints amount to bullshit you state just to come off as reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 -"Unprecedented"? I find that unlikely. And even if that were so, it wouldn't justify executive power grabs. I think partisanship and a lack of perspective are driving these complaints, pure and simple. We both know you wouldn't mind Democrats "obstructing" President Romney. If the Congress passed an immigration bill that instituted harsher penalties, increased deportation, beefed up border security, etc. and the President vetoed it, would he also be guilty of "obstructionism"? The Republicans have won control over the legislative branch, so it appears even the voters are being "obstructionist" now -No matter how you shake it, it amounts to him skirting Congress on a major issue that provokes strong passions in the electorate. Legality aside, he has no mandate to do this. Yes, unprecedented. Look into the use of the filibuster over time, it was used more frequently than it had ever been used in American history, to effectively block much of Obama's agenda, and to water-down a lot of what was passed. It's not even a marginal thing, it was used far and away more frequently than ever before. You can, and should, construe this as a legislative power grab (the filibuster is not part of the constitution). But it's even worse than that, because it wasn't the legislative branch as a whole asserting authority, but instead a small minority in one already wildly undemocratic chamber of Congress halting the ability to legislate and govern by the vast majorities elected to that chamber and the other chamber, in addition to the elected President. This was all, of course, perfectly legal. But there certainly wasn't a mandate for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 What part? Are you serious? All you have to say is you don't know. That's an acceptable answer. The house bill which isnt amnesty either goes a good deal further than anything the President is saying.Give you took the time to post a good deal while dodging the question, I have one more. When looking at the "immigration problem". What aspects of the situation are you most concerned with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 When looking at the "immigration problem". What aspects of the situation are you most concerned with? uncontrolled migration of millions from third world dictatorships to first world democratic welfare states Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 http://pressthink.org/2014/11/republicans-must-show-they-can-govern-no-they-dont-please-stop-saying-that/ The alternative to show you can govern is to keep President Obama from governing. Right? Keep him from accomplishing what he wants to get done in his final two years and then go to the country, as Karl Rove used to say, with a simple message: time for a change! This is not only a valid way to proceed, its a pretty likely outcome. Rush Limbaugh, certainly a player in the coalition, put it this way. The Republicans, he said, emerged from the 2014 election with Limbaugh represents the populist wing of the party. How about the establishment? In a widely-cited editorial called the Governing Trap, National Review magazine was even more explicit. Among the recommendations the editors had: putting up legislation that Senate Democrats filibuster. Thats not governing. Thats gridlock with intention. As Paul Waldman noted on the Washington Post site, this isnt bad advice, politically speaking. Exactly. There is simply no factual basis for NPRs Ailsa Chang to be telling listeners that Mitch McConnell has to be able to prove that his party can be more than just the party of no. He doesn't have to do that. Rush is right that the only reason the GOP was elected was to stop Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 ...but, apparently, not actually do their jobs. At least we're all on the same page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Also, you complain about a lot of Bush's policies, but if you voted to reelect him then all your complaints amount to bullshit you state just to come off as reasonable. Never did, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I'll go out on a limb and guess that racist, hateful Rush did not think the Democrats had a mandate to govern back in 2009 when they won the largest majorities in both chambers of Congress we'd seen in quite some time. Referring to Rush Limbaugh is a fucking a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 uncontrolled migration of millions from third world dictatorships to first world democratic welfare statesSo since we've clearly shown immigrants are a net positive and aren't a drain on the system it's a human rights issue for you?Oh and hey we're still all anxious to hear your theory around how the general public doesn't actually want immigration reform, that the topic specifically and especially was the driving factor for the GOP wins in these mid-terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I am well sick of this "mandate" horseshit. To the extent that the concept itself has meaning, a slim victory isn't one. They said the same shit when W was elected in office, and explicitly denied it when Obama won by a far more significant margin. It's pure bullshit and the Republicans shovel it every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fallen Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Never did, so...Then you're a man of principle. And I agree that the Democrats should have stood up more to Bush. But I wouldn't advocate obstructing.When one party wins a majority, however slight, the ball is in their court. It's incumbent on the other party to continue to govern. And you see that from the Democrats. Not so with the Republicans. And I don't see how a reasonable person can defend their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 The "why won't they govern", "politics is broken", "stop obstructing" line is what you hear when Democrats can't win elections or advance unpopular policies, they start throwing tantrums. A politician's job is to do things that will attract a majority of his voters. Opposition to the party in power is a perfectly legitimate means of achieving that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Re: "tantrums" Republicans were not elected to govern. How can you govern with a president that disobeys the constitution? How can you govern with a president that is demonstrably lawless when he thinks he has to be? Right-winger attitude towards Obama: with no evidence whatsoever, just make shit up and whine loudly about it. Start on day one of his Presidency, and carry on for six fucking years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.