***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[af1 1982]

Hello..for romney to win da 1st debate he had to PRESENT how bad Obama's record was.

That's just down right not true. You're acting like everything he said about Obama was true. That elephant kool-aid is strong with this one.

And you want to talk about promises? I'll admit, Obama promised a lot that he didn't deliver on. And that was LARGELY due to Congressional gridlock.

Romney promised 12 million jobs. That's 250,000 jobs a month. Are you crazy ninja? Not even Romney himself believes he will do that. He's lying through his teeth and right to the faces of the American public.

 

[futuremd]

Lets get this out of the way and make this clear.

Obama did NOT have a super majority:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenni...ng-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html?view=screen

[h1]Debunking the Myth: Obama's Two-Year Supermajority[/h1]
Posted: 10/01/2012 2:14 pm


Mitt Romney's at it again -- shading the truth on CBS News' 60 Minutes.

In this video  he's perpetuating the false Republican narrative that President Obama should have gotten more done during his first two years in office because he had a supermajority in the Senate.

​

A supermajority is a filibuster-proof 60 or more Senate seats, allowing one party to pass legislation without votes from the other,

Don't forget: the president needed a supermajority because of the Republicans' unprecedented use of the filibuster as an obstruction tactic -- they've used it more than400 times.

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline  shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.

The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.Do you see a two-year supermajority?

I didn't think so.

Originally aired  on  The War Room with Jennifer Granholm.  The War Room  airs weeknights at 10 p.m. EST on Current TV. Follow Jennifer Granholm on Facebookand Twitter, and  The War Room on Facebook  and Twitter.


Follow Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JenGranholm

---

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast...super-majority-in-congress-for-two-years.html
[h1]The Big Lies of Mitt Romney V: Obama Had A Super-Majority In Congress For Two Years[/h1]


A reader writes:

This stood out to me in "The Lies of Mitt Romney III":

"we remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years"

I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years.

And there was never  a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.

Please stay vigilant. Your eyes are as good as ours. Scan Romney's statements for factual untruths - not embellishments or exaggerations, but empirically false statements. Update from a reader:

Not to let Mitt Romney off the hook, because his "two years supermajority" claim is still blatantly false, but there was an interim Senator from Massachusetts who was, in fact, the 60th vote for healthcare reform after Ted Kennedy died. Paul Kirk served as interim Senator  from Massachusetts from September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010.  Therefore, the Democrats had a Senate supermajority for seven weeks with Kennedy and nineteen weeks with Paul Kirk, for a total of 26 weeks, or half a year.

Update from another reader:

By the time Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, 2009, Ted Kennedy had not cast a Senate vote for about four months because he was terminally illwith brain cancer. (He died on August 25, 2009.) Robert Byrd was alsohospitalized  from May 18 through June 30, 2009 and may not have been well enough to attend Congress and vote for some time afterward. Thus the Democrats did not really have the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster until Kirk took office. Byrd (who died in June 2010) was also periodically too ill to attend and vote during the September 2009-February 2010 period, though I have not been able to confirm this with a quick Google.

 

[futuremd]

It wasn't 2 years he had the majority, that's a MYTH. Kennedy died then Scott Brown won in CT, I believe. It was about 8months he had the super majority, and yes, he was busy doing the Affordable Healthcare Act, which I'm sure a lot of you guys can take advantage of. Being covered til the age of 26 and they can't deny you for pre existing condition.

he has 60 on paper, but he was still shy by one vote because Ted Kennedy was out so it was still 59. 

 

[rillo561]

Seriously, I hate politics but the GOP platform this year is Romney/Ryan "We thought you weren't paying attention".

 

[sundoobie]

Yo champ, you seen da unemployment #'s?
You seen da housing market?
You seen wages compared to inflation?
Obama lying about da embassy scandal & hillary gotta take
It for da team.
immigration reform..or lack there of.
QE3? Smh
Gas prices?
& obama aint go NO plans for his 2nd term...

So because of all this, you're willing to put a man that wants to eliminate taxes that the wealthy pay like the Alternative Min Tax or Estate taxes and instead cut funding for the programs that affect everyone around me like disabled veterans benefits, education programs, unemployment benefits, elderly/disabled supplemental security income , etc.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3658
Romney Budget Proposals Would Necessitate Very Large Cuts in Medicaid, Education, Health Research and Other Programs

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm


Yes Obama isn't that great of a President however a Romney administration would just be a big disaster for America. Basically, you got a man that wants to widen the gap between the rich and the poor... simple as that.

 

[rashi]

Roaring back

Which will crash again because it is being propped up by the Fed, just like 2008. Expect housing to improve because of Bernanke's QE∞, and then that bubble will blow. What will happen first Federal Student Aid of Housing Crash part Deux?

 

[futuremd]

Ninjahood, were we listening to the same debate?

Obama has the better plan, even for you, on immigration. He's not going to support a bill that would make them likely to pull you over and ask you for your papers like Romney would. When dude says "imagine if they look like me and they think you are what you are not"... that tells me that he understands the impact of passing a bill that gives a free for all for the police to just harass well to do citizens. Romney doesn't understand that. AT ALL. 

Hell, the guy who is doing Romney's immigration policy it the one who supported that Arizona bill that got knocked down. 

 

[ninjahood]

As usual Ninja has no idea what he's talking about


About to watch the 2nd debate now, got caught up last night and ended up missing it.

Da irony is hilarious.


Like i said, from da time of inauguration to 2010 dems had da senate, house,

Romney's plan is SELF-DEPORTATION.  Do you think SELF-DEPORTATION is a winning formula for dealing with immigration??

Obama could of nipped immigration reform in da butt. There's no excuse for it. Immigration isnt da polarization

Issue obamacare was, ya telling me someone wouldn't cross party lines on da GOP side just to get cheaper

Labor or brainy Asians or indians to stick around with math & science majors which would be great for business?

No excuse.

 

[futuremd]

As usual Ninja has no idea what he's talking about

About to watch the 2nd debate now, got caught up last night and ended up missing it.

Da irony is hilarious.


Like i said, from da time of inauguration to 2010 dems had da senate, house,

Romney's plan is SELF-DEPORTATION.  Do you think SELF-DEPORTATION is a winning formula for dealing with immigration??

Obama could of nipped immigration reform in da butt. There's no excuse for it. Immigration isnt da polarization

Issue obamacare was, ya telling me someone wouldn't cross party lines on da GOP side just to get cheaper

Labor or brainy Asians or indians to stick around with math & science majors which would be great for business?

No excuse.

A. The phrase is "nip it in the bud." As in flower bud. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/256600.html

B. And yes, I'm telling you that someone wouldn't cross party lines. The GOP has consistently made it apart of their agenda to not work with Obama. I don't know WHERE you have been. Obama has BEEN trying to retain talent...but here you go touting the false claim that he didn't do enough or even try without forgetting that congress neutered the bill from what it originally was.

Mind you, obama is NOT infallible but one of these days you'll learn to make an argument that doesn't involve stretching facts to make your point.

 

[futuremd]

Roaring back

Which will crash again because it is being propped up by the Fed, just like 2008. Expect housing to improve because of Bernanke's QE∞, and then that bubble will blow. What will happen first Federal Student Aid of Housing Crash part Deux?

OK. Rashi, if you're in charge of the economy (because the president isn't) what do you do, to fix it? 

 

[jjs07]

Unless there is a quick fix to this looming fiscal cliff, the housing market is going to crash again. If you notice, a lot of homes are probably going up for sale in your neighborhood right now. People want OUT before everything falls apart.

Personally, I'm hoping for some 11th hour resolution to solve this problem.

 

[cj863]

Obama could of nipped immigration reform in da butt. There's no excuse for it. Immigration isnt da polarization

Issue obamacare was, ya telling me someone wouldn't cross party lines on da GOP side just to get cheaper

Labor or brainy Asians or indians to stick around with math & science majors which would be great for business?

No excuse.

What world are you living in fam?

 

[rillo561]

^ I couldn't make heads or tails from that post.

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

The election was noteworthy for a controversy over the awarding of Florida's 25 electoral votes, the subsequent recount process in that state, and the unusual event of the winning candidate having received fewer popular votes than the runner-up.[2] This marked only the fourth election in U.S. History in which the eventual winner failed to win a plurality of the popular vote (after the elections of 1824, 1876, and 188. Later research showed that by the standards requested by the Gore campaign in their contest brief and set by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush would have likely won the recount anyway.[3] However, the same research indicates that had Gore asked for and received a statewide recount, then he would have likely won the statewide recount by about 100 votes, awarding him Florida's (then) 25 electoral votes and consequently victory in the election (by a margin of 291 electoral votes to Bush's 246)

does it really matter who you vote for? honest question does any of this stuff matter?

 

[kix4kix]

Ninjahood for deporting his fellow Latinos?

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

I think he means the election. I agree with him. It'll be close, maybe even Bush-Gore close, but I think Obama has got this

If he's talking about the election and you're co-signing his 55% percent statement you guys are tripping (simple arithmetic like Obama keeps saying ).

You understand how much 55% is in a popular election? That's like winning the popular vote by more than 12 million votes, that's not a close election at all, it's a blowout.

In 2008 Obama blew McCain away after running the best campaign imaginable following a nationally detested George Bush he only won with getting 53%, which was like 10 million votes.

In 2000, Gore vs Bush, Gore was the first ever President to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. Gore won by only .5 percent, complete craziness.

This election I'm seriously sensing a close battle, definitely under 1.5 %.

Another strong showing on Monday night and Obama will win this election. 55% may be too high, I just looked at the Gallup polls and in my mind I've exaggerated the support Obama has among likely voters. However, I don't believe this will be close, at all. Romney simply is not a uniting figure, he's not George W. Bush. He was not his party's ideal choice for president and this remains true just three weeks away from election day. Rather than vote for Obama, I predict Romney's support at the voting booth will be much less than expected. Maybe something like 53-45 in favor of Obama is a more reasonable estimate. That's only .1 higher than 2008 against arguably a much weaker opponent. Obama the man remains popular a part from his policies and the economy is conveniently rebounding at a surprising rate just as the election draws near.

 

[sundoobie]

It wasn't 2 years he had the majority, that's a MYTH. Kennedy died then Scott Brown won in CT, I believe. It was about 8months he had the super majority, and yes, he was busy doing the Affordable Healthcare Act, which I'm sure a lot of you guys can take advantage of. Being covered til the age of 26 and they can't deny you for pre existing condition.

Exactly. I can't believe it's October 17, 2012, and the words Obama's 2 year Super Majority is still being talked about. It's ridiculous that voters are so easily swayed by propaganda.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama's presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

In April 2009, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still "only" 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.

In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.

In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.

In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.

In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy's vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd's health continued to deteriorate.

In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.

In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms.

 

[ninjahood]

As usual Ninja has no idea what he's talking about



About to watch the 2nd debate now, got caught up last night and ended up missing it.

Da irony is hilarious.



Like i said, from da time of inauguration to 2010 dems had da senate, house,

Romney's plan is SELF-DEPORTATION.  Do you think SELF-DEPORTATION is a winning formula for dealing with immigration??

Obama could of nipped immigration reform in da butt. There's no excuse for it. Immigration isnt da polarization


Issue obamacare was, ya telling me someone wouldn't cross party lines on da GOP side just to get cheaper


Labor or brainy Asians or indians to stick around with math

A. The phrase is "nip it in the bud." As in flower bud. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/256600.html

B. And yes, I'm telling you that someone wouldn't cross party lines. The GOP has consistently made it apart of their agenda to not work with Obama. I don't know WHERE you have been. Obama has BEEN trying to retain talent...but here you go touting the false claim that he didn't do enough or even try without forgetting that congress neutered the bill from what it originally was.

Mind you, obama is NOT infallible but one of these days you'll learn to make an argument that doesn't involve stretching facts to make your point.

Obama's approval rate was SOARING in 2008, he was still flappin that bipartisan rhetoric, and immigration

Is a bipartisan issue..u got NO ground to stand on talkin bout if Obama had his hands tied... he EFFED up big time on it.

 

[Coupé It]

Another strong showing on Monday night and Obama will win this election. 55% may be too high, I just looked at the Gallup polls and in my mind I've exaggerated the support Obama has among likely voters. However, I don't believe this will be close, at all. Romney simply is not a uniting figure, he's not George W. Bush. He was not his party's ideal choice for president and this remains true just three weeks away from election day. Rather than vote for Obama, I predict Romney's support at the voting booth will be much less than expected. Maybe something like 53-45 in favor of Obama is a more reasonable estimate. That's only .1 higher than 2008 against arguably a much weaker opponent. Obama the man remains popular a part from his policies and the economy is conveniently rebounding at a surprising rate just as the election draws near.

You are delusional and clearly only want to see what you believe.

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

Another strong showing on Monday night and Obama will win this election. 55% may be too high, I just looked at the Gallup polls and in my mind I've exaggerated the support Obama has among likely voters. However, I don't believe this will be close, at all. Romney simply is not a uniting figure, he's not George W. Bush. He was not his party's ideal choice for president and this remains true just three weeks away from election day. Rather than vote for Obama, I predict Romney's support at the voting booth will be much less than expected. Maybe something like 53-45 in favor of Obama is a more reasonable estimate. That's only .1 higher than 2008 against arguably a much weaker opponent. Obama the man remains popular a part from his policies and the economy is conveniently rebounding at a surprising rate just as the election draws near.

You are delusional and clearly only want to see what you believe.

okay, when election day comes and you happen to be proven right feel free to point out how wrong I was. I have no problem being proven wrong.

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

I've been on this forum for 7 years and I still don't understand why y'all bother to argue with Ninjahood and his idiotic statements.

He's a grown *** man who's darker than Obama, but refuses to acknowledge he's at least part black. Thinks he's got it made because he lives in a rent controlled closet in "da heights", takes pride in dressing like a thug to scare people and has no education.

AND with all that said he thinks Romney's rich *** and his Republican buddies are really going to run this country in a way that would improve his standard of living.

Now whether you're white, black, Asian, Democrat, Republican, independent, w/e read what I just typed and tell me that doesn't sound stupid as all hell?

I say all that to say....STOP FEEDING THE TROLL

Thank you.

 

[futuremd]

Unless there is a quick fix to this looming fiscal cliff, the housing market is going to crash again. If you notice, a lot of homes are probably going up for sale in your neighborhood right now. People want OUT before everything falls apart.

Personally, I'm hoping for some 11th hour resolution to solve this problem.

Not gonna happen fam.

We're screwed either way. The banks know it too. This is bigger than either candidate. 

 

[thunderchunk69]

I've been on this forum for 7 years and I still don't understand why y'all bother to argue with Ninjahood and his idiotic statements.

He's a grown *** man who's darker than Obama, but refuses to acknowledge he's at least part black.

but you must be the troll, because that's 100% incorrect, just a myth carried on by everyone louder than Ninjahood

he doesn't like calling himself black (which everyone assumes means he denies ANY %age of blackness, but that's a matter of personal definition), but he never ever ever denied being part black, he's even said the opposite on here and twitter several times,
but everyone wants to hear what they want

 

[af1 1982]

I've been on this forum for 7 years and I still don't understand why y'all bother to argue with Ninjahood and his idiotic statements.
He's a grown *** man who's darker than Obama, but refuses to acknowledge he's at least part black. Thinks he's got it made because he lives in a rent controlled closet in "da heights", takes pride in dressing like a thug to scare people and has no education.
AND with all that said he thinks Romney's rich *** and his Republican buddies are really going to run this country in a way that would improve his standard of living.
Now whether you're white, black, Asian, Democrat, Republican, independent, w/e read what I just typed and tell me that doesn't sound stupid as all hell?
I say all that to say....STOP FEEDING THE TROLL
Thank you.

Boom.

Roasted.

 

[Coupé It]

okay, when election day comes and you happen to be proven right feel free to point out how wrong I was. I have no problem being proven wrong.

No I wish it was the way you're saying it is, believe me I do. It's just not, here's how.

First - Voter turnout will be much lower this election than last election. Whenever voter turnout is low it usually means that Minorities, Young People, and Women aren't going to the polls. Those three demographics tend to vote Democrat. Voter turnout in 2008 was the highest of all time. Truth be told if everyone was forced to vote in this country, Democrats would win every election (That's another story).

Second - Obama's debate performance, although solid; won't do much. The only time someone gains an excessive amount of poll-points after a debate is when that candidate literally embrasses the other candidate. (Like the first debate). That 5 point lead Obama had 2 weeks ago, he won't have again.

Thirds - The support for Romney at the booth (like you predicted to be low) is actually going to be high. After the first debate the Republican base went insane. They gained so much ground and momentum and are ready to hit the booth. The Undecided/Independent voters who are now voting for Romney will absolutely show up.

Also the Gallup tracking polls you're talking about has Romney up 6+ points, so I don't why you seem so confident.

This race will be tight, no if, ands, buts about it.

Like I said before, if Obama loses - will go down as one of the biggest Fail's in political history. Our grandchildren will talk about how Obama lost this election with one bad debate performance.