Difference in how Republicans and Democrats govern

[liberalmediaaddict]

When Republicans are in power they act like they have a mandate and govern like it. Doesn't matter if they lose the popular vote by millions or only have 4 seat majority in the House. They don't try to be partisan or work across the aisle. They see America as an autocracy and they are in control. Their ultimate goal is one party rule where the Democratic Party doesn't exist.

On the other hand when Democrats are in power we bend over backwards to appear nonpartisan and try to bring both parties together for the good of the country. Even though the majority of the country votes for us and supports are agenda.

Republicans are ruthless, cruel and unapologetic. They know because of gerrymandering, the Electoral College, voter suppression and citizens united they'll always win back power even if they lose it.

Democrats are way too nice. When we controlled Congress should have voted to raise the debt limit for at least 10 years when we had the chance. Or removed the stupid thing all together.

Everyone knew if Republicans took back Congress they'd refuse to raise the debt ceiling to destroy the economy and help Trump retake the White House.

This is like 2011 and 2013 all over again. But now Republicans are even more unreasonable and detached from reality. The Tea Party was relatively sane compared to these MAGA arsonists. Most of them don't even know what the debt limit is.

Hopefully Biden and Senate Democrats can reason with these lunatics. And any debt limit increase should last until after the 2024 election at least.

I just can't believe we're in this hostage situation again. Trying to pass a budget in September is already a big enough challenge.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

1. I Would Argue That This Was Obama's Biggest Failing

I think Obama could have accomplished a lot more in his time as President. His problem was that he spent a good portion of his first term desperately trying to reach out to Republicans and get bipartisan approval. And quite predictably, Republicans spit in his face every time he reached across the aisle. This, to me, sums up his first year in office, and a portion of his second.

I would argue that had he taken the George W. Bush, "you're either with us or you're against us" approach from the very beginning, he could have accomplished a lot more in his 8 years. But that's my main complaint with Obama. He was a great President who accomplished a lot, but he came out of the blocks slow because he tried way too hard to be bipartisan with a group of Republicans who were so agenda-drive that they would have all voted no on a "Puppies Are Cute" bill if he had been the one who proposed it. Just imagine how much more he could have done if he had just started ramming things through on Day One.

[BlueTsunami2018]

2. Yep.

At the end of the day it’s all about who is paying whom. Even when we had 60 seats for that brief time in Obama’s first term we couldn’t do anything without pulling teeth because of the Lieberman and Nelsons of the world.

Can you imagine the GOP with 60 senators, even for a week? They’d take full advantage.

[liberalmediaaddict]

4. 2009 was definitely a missed opportunity

Obama and our majority in Congress should have at least tried to codify Roe v Wade and fill as many judicial vacancies as possible. I think if Obama had been more assertive with his agenda Pelosi and Harry Reid could have forced all the Democrats to fall in line.

[walkingman]

3. I agree with you - it is very frustrating. I wish I knew the answer.