Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Don't care what Rahm thinks. :) But IMHO, Trump will run Ivanka for president [View all]woo me with science
(32,139 posts)107. THANK YOU. nt
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
327 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Don't care what Rahm thinks. :) But IMHO, Trump will run Ivanka for president [View all]
servermsh
Feb 2021
OP
+1 What you describe is something we saw conservatives do for years under GWB.
DRoseDARs
Dec 2011
#166
If a tree falls in the forest and no one sees it....yada yada yada, signifying nothing.
ooglymoogly
Dec 2011
#243
So my one little vote counts but my tiny little abstention does not?
freedom fighter jh
Dec 2011
#274
You faith in corrupt elections is touching. The system is broken and can not be fixed by working
Vincardog
Dec 2011
#248
It's not your fault, but it is your responsibillity to understand who you're voting for.
Liberal_Stalwart71
Dec 2011
#187
You can criticize him, just as I have done. But I think that people were expecting far too much, and
Liberal_Stalwart71
Dec 2011
#256
By all Means. In fact, give up on the Democrats altogether. Ron Paul, third party, that makes sense.
Capn Sunshine
Dec 2011
#153
Ron Paul is NO liberal, my friend. Indeed, he is a bigot through and through. Talk about
Liberal_Stalwart71
Dec 2011
#258
right, because there's not a dimes worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush
greenman3610
Dec 2011
#186
Are you suggesting that he didn't extend the Bush tax cuts or that they are good for the country?
ThomWV
Dec 2011
#100
The cost of extending unemployment was way too high. He should have reject the "deal" and turned
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#143
Sure. Had he done exactly that, people would be screaming about why he made a deal that EXCLUDED
Liberal_Stalwart71
Dec 2011
#188
The compromise was good for millions of unemployed granted, but the consequences probably will be
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#272
What are you willing to "compromise" for them this year? Don't even pretend the need is any less
TheKentuckian
Dec 2011
#304
Actually, the Democrats DID have a stand alone unemployment extension bill. Indeed, they put at leas
Liberal_Stalwart71
Dec 2011
#195
If I remember correctly those votes occurred before the vote on extending the Bush
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#249
Yes, but to believe that after letting the tax cuts expire, the Repukes were suddenly going to go
Liberal_Stalwart71
Dec 2011
#275
Actually, the problem wasn't a "weak-willed president." The problem was that there were Blue Dog
Liberal_Stalwart71
Dec 2011
#276
The part where you leave out the context of the 2010 election results. The parts of the deal that
emulatorloo
Dec 2011
#131
Exactly. The behavior lends credence to the claim that liberals are elitists. Really, it makes us no
Liberal_Stalwart71
Dec 2011
#190
That is nonsense. If they all expired, a family of 4 making 20k/year would lose a 3k/year tax credit
BzaDem
Dec 2011
#108
"it (extending Bush tax cuts) would stop any chance of recovery the country stood"
Martin Eden
Dec 2011
#320
I have always voted Dem, but I can't see in good conscience how I can vote for Obama when he does
spooked911
Dec 2011
#32
It's funny that when it comes to Obama, it seems to be disappointment after disappointment, and
Liberal_Stalwart71
Dec 2011
#192
Haha. Obama has just launched his "WAR ON RELIGION" and he murdered Santa so that gays can serve in
emulatorloo
Dec 2011
#61
So the snark is to encourage people to vote for the greater of two evils? n/t
Sheepshank
Dec 2011
#164
They had better build a lot more prison then. I do think you are correct! btw. And can we please
SammyWinstonJack
Dec 2011
#152
Entire national security state -- MIC -- has to be dismantled -- including the
defendandprotect
Dec 2011
#80
I agree one shouldnt be able to "make up stuff", so show us where the administration says
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#273
+1 however the constitution is clear and can be misconstrued only by a crooks and slick lawyers;
ooglymoogly
Dec 2011
#223
Thanks for the post. It is clear that Obama wants the language strenghten to permit the indefinate
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#148
His threatened veto is because the bill limits his power to fight terrorism. Show me where it says
rhett o rick
Dec 2011
#162
What I understood from the clip is that the Obama administration requested the language
JDPriestly
Dec 2011
#142
It's clear that the administration only objects to this bill because they THINK it restricts
spooked911
Dec 2011
#181
Still pushing that blatantly dishonest spin? Easy to do WHEN YOU SELECTIVELY BOLD...
Zhade
Dec 2011
#99
You got that right. It will soon become even more apparent who is working overtime
Number23
Dec 2011
#269
"Off-Topic" is only germane to the Original Post of the thread, not posts within the thread...nt
SidDithers
Dec 2011
#54
Why? The same mentality as those supporting this bill, eh? Send them to Gitmo, ask questions later..
sadge goddess
Dec 2011
#115
that is disturbing and I could think of more. But the thought of President Gingrich would convince
Douglas Carpenter
Dec 2011
#17
but there is no choice - there is not going to be a true liberal as a viable candidate in 2012
Douglas Carpenter
Dec 2011
#96
if we are going to make Nazi comparisons - then those who didn't unite around the strongest candidat
Douglas Carpenter
Dec 2011
#118
I won't make that comparison but as for it defying reason, not so fast there...
sadge goddess
Dec 2011
#120
and the election of Newt Gingrich would be an enormous step in that direction
Douglas Carpenter
Dec 2011
#130
I felt that way in 1980 and voted for Barry Commoner of the Citizens Party rather than Jimmy Carter
Douglas Carpenter
Dec 2011
#134
I don't know what we are now allowed to say here so I am very wary of asking you more info
sadge goddess
Dec 2011
#136
Exactly! I made this mistake twice, voting for Nader in 1996 and 2000. It didn't matter that I live
Liberal_Stalwart71
Dec 2011
#201
I used to take your position up until about two days ago. Then, as it
coalition_unwilling
Dec 2011
#28
Maybe but it misses the offered point that the President like other before him may be
TheKentuckian
Dec 2011
#280
So, after the inevitable "compromise" will the govenment have the power to indefinitely detain?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Dec 2011
#50
Well said. The real issue is whether our government can exert tyrannical power of it's people.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Dec 2011
#63
Well I'm not ready to turn my card in and will leave you with this link.
unapatriciated
Dec 2011
#240
It is not terrorism that is "cockamamie bullshit," it is the erosion of constitutional protections
indepat
Dec 2011
#290
It is *precisely* in the act of voting that I exercise my responsibility as a citizen,
Demit
Dec 2011
#300
Sorry, but Im pretty sure this has to do with NDAA 1031 not election suppression. n/t
teddy51
Dec 2011
#84
It doesn't matter. Presidential elections are not decided by who votes for whom.
Beam Me Up
Dec 2011
#85
Glenn Greenwald is a Constitutional Lawyer and he read it.... Said it was "more of the same" as
KoKo
Dec 2011
#125
Do you have something on this bill that proves that it isn't as bad as it appears? I would like to
teddy51
Dec 2011
#88
Why not? They voted for war in Iraq - Patriot Act - Homeland Security!
defendandprotect
Dec 2011
#91
Thats true, but I sure hope they are smarter than voting on a bill with the ability
teddy51
Dec 2011
#93
I ran into to the same wall in 2008 when he said he'd escalate the lost war in Afghanistan.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Dec 2011
#111
Are you for real? The president has kept a long list of promises. Your disdain for him will
Liberal_Stalwart71
Dec 2011
#202
Why are you afraid to suport a fair trial using centuries old constitutional safeguards?
scentopine
Dec 2011
#196
Obama thinks he has this one in the bag, so he'll continue to pander to his republican base...
scentopine
Dec 2011
#194
Really? You've been able to see what's going on in his mind? That's mighty arrogant
Liberal_Stalwart71
Dec 2011
#203
I woke up late...is this another one of those "cut off your nose to spite your face" threads?
Walk away
Dec 2011
#200
Obama is scuttling constitutional safeguards that separate us from 3rd world despot oligarchy
scentopine
Dec 2011
#283
I really wish you would have given more information about this clip so that we could easily find
Bolo Boffin
Dec 2011
#219
If a Rethug becomes our next president as a result of the left splitting its vote ...
Martin Eden
Dec 2011
#246
Perhaps Obama should seek the votes of the left instead of pandering to the "middle".
Tierra_y_Libertad
Dec 2011
#257
What... you think seeing what almost happened in France, and what is happening in Canada
redqueen
Dec 2011
#292