It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Obamacare Sink the Democrats?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Well hell.

In 2010 the Repubicans were elected TO BE the party of NO.

And they did their jobs so well ?

The were elected MAJORITY in the Senate to continue the trend.

Hell if they were giving in to what the current emperor wanted

We woulda saw the other side elected.

We didn't now did we.
edit on 7-11-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Lots of things sank the Democrats.

And yes Obamacare was part of that.

But don't forget the IRS,Benghazi,Fast And Furious, and Amnesty, and the economy, and the absolute farce the 'war on terror was over' with the rise of ISIS.

Gitmo was still open, back room deals with Iran etc.

It wasn't any one thing. Everything that happened during the last 6 years was all on the table.

Some people voted the way they did because they had enough of 'hope, and change' which was nothing more than hype, and more of the same.

FAILURES.

Obama took over a sinking ship in 2008. Hell, he had no choice but to spout HOPE. Unfortunately, HOPE was underestimated and turned out to be HYPE.

What else was he to do?

Obamacare has been a huge flustercluck but if I recall, the Republicans had a verrry similar plan.

In either way, his HOPE message needed time to fester but everyone is out of time and his legacy looks very tainted.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Obamacare didn't sink the democrats. Being Democrat sank Democrats. Republicans don't cooperate unless they get to be in charge. That's the way they play. Doesn't matter what the topic is, unless they're in charge they won't play. And then when gridlock happens they blame the other side (for not letting them have the presidency).

F the country, if you don't get to be president, don't play ball. Seems like the right way to be. Ignore what's right, ignore all good ideas, just say blindly no to all--, and when you finally get voted in say something really dick-ish like "Finally we may see an end to gridlock"

Amazing the level of support this sort of douchery has...
edit on 7-11-2014 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Jaellma




Obama took over a sinking ship in 2008.


He has no one to blame but himself.

If he didn't like the job then he should have just stayed home.

I wish he had.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Yes, Obama had a lot to do with it but so did Harry Reid. Reid wouldn't reach across the isle and work with the Republicans that were still trying to do their jobs and it doesn't appear Obama encouraged him to.


More so than House Speaker John A. Boehner or even President Obama, it is Mr. Reid, a Nevada Democrat in his eighth year as majority leader, who has the most single-handed power to shape what gets done and what falls to the wayside in Washington.

Mr. Reid is increasingly bullish on using that power, deciding what bills make it to his chamber floor, what amendments will be allowed to those bills that do get there, and whether the debate will become a serious policy discussion or a political tool designed to rally his party’s supporters and annoy his tea party opponents.

Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter



But this here's funny:


With Democrats promising to run on Obamacare in 2014, however, Democrats are looking at choppy waters ahead.
www.tpnn.com...


I just can't believe this.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Obama.Care had enough to do with the Democrat meltdown.

In earnest however, the meltdown started in 2010.

The Obama Mandate only lasted 2 short years.

The Republican Mandate started with the 2010 elections.

The majority of the population has been represented by elected House Republicans since the 2010 elections.

The Senate was delayed by the 1/3 seat vote every two years rule.

The House elections moves faster. The Senate moves slow, they never have a full 100 seat election.

The balance of power and checks & balances apparently has been restored.




posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux



I think Nancy hasn't read the election results yet.

"You have to vote before you can see what we will do to you"




posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Jaellma




Obama took over a sinking ship in 2008.


He has no one to blame but himself.

If he didn't like the job then he should have just stayed home.

I wish he had.

So you don't dispute the ship was sinking back in 2008.

Even if he had stayed home in 2008, whomever took the reins would have faced a similar challenge.

Irrespective of POTUS choice, it would have been a wash.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
It was one of many contributing factors.

Ultimately, I think the Democrats lost because they misread the mandate of 2006. America was tired of partisanship, tired of ideological crusaders, and elected a group of Democrats to Congress in traditionally conservative districts who ran as moderates. That's how they took over Congress. Well, once the party got control of both houses and the presidency in Jan. 2009, they forgot about that and themselves turned into ideological crusaders. The result? Those moderates got pasted in 2010, and the few that remained got the boot Tuesday and took the Dems majority with them.

Obamacare, threats of executive amnesty, attempts at sweeping gun control legislation, numerous scandals including IRS targeting of the opposition. Add in huge problems in the Middle East and claims of economic recovery that the public found laughable...all of it contributed to the defeat they suffered.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

"The balance of power and checks & balances apparently has been restored"

You mean the checks and balances removed under Bush with the Patriot Act are being restored? I don't remember seeing anything about the Patriot Act being removed.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Jaellma




So you don't dispute the ship was sinking back in 2008.


The ship was sinking long before GW ever got elected.

Want someone to blame

Blame these folks:




posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Jaellma




What else was he to do? 

What he said he was going to.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96
Ha. Typical response from a Republican.

No blame whatsoever on the Republicans. ok.

I have lived to learn that both parties are usually to blame for whatever mess we are usually in.

Denying this is irresponsible.




posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jaellma

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Jaellma




Obama took over a sinking ship in 2008.


He has no one to blame but himself.

If he didn't like the job then he should have just stayed home.

I wish he had.

So you don't dispute the ship was sinking back in 2008.

Even if he had stayed home in 2008, whomever took the reins would have faced a similar challenge.

Irrespective of POTUS choice, it would have been a wash.


Democrats blew the hole in the hull starting in 2007 when they took control of Congress.

Everything started falling apart faster from then on.




posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: xuenchen

"The balance of power and checks & balances apparently has been restored"

You mean the checks and balances removed under Bush with the Patriot Act are being restored? I don't remember seeing anything about the Patriot Act being removed.


And I never even mentioned the Patriot Act


But Obama signed the renewals with a pen full of ink


NWO Fever




posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Jaellma

It is typical. I've never seen a single right winger on here admit any sort of blame. Republicans are perfection incarnate. If Democrats didn't exist we'd be in a utopia apparently.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So in your opinion Bush and Obama are both culpable?



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure Obama could have taken any bill that was written and sponsored by a Republican and promote it -- and the Republicans would then drop it and not support it.

The main goal of the GOP has been to obstruct anything (even positive things) that Obama wants to do.

And unfortunately, the Democrats will do the same...but it really comes down to money. In my area, all the campaigns that spent the most money won.

We as a country have to do something about money in politics, it's really getting out of control.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: xuenchen

So in your opinion Bush and Obama are both culpable?


For the Patriot Act,

YES



The "Temporary" design has been compromised.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

So that's why Harry Reid has tabled all those bills without even letting them be debated? Because the Republicans won't play ball?

I seem to recall that more things go through the House to the president than go through the Senate to the president.

If the Republicans won't play without the presidency, why are they passing things through their chamber, and where are all the bills going through the Senate?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join