President Undercut

Dirtie_Frank

While everyone is clamoring about what Donald Trump is saying, the current POTUS was undercut by his
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/261644-general-we-have-not-contained-isis

And his Secretary of Defense:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/defense-sec-ash-carter-isis-is-not-contained/

Three weeks after saying ISIS was contained:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/15/ben-rhodes/what-barack-obama-said-about-isis-being-contained/

There is some serious problems with the administration if the SECDEF, the CJCS and the Commander in Chief are not on the same sheet of music. Either the POTUSs aides are not telling him the truth or he is ignoring it.

rgambs

It's political spin, they all do it and it is annoying AF.
Like Bush on the warship declaring victory...

dignin

You really need to read these articles before you post them.

In Obamas context ("What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in Syria they'll come in, they'll leave. But you don't see this systematic march by ISIL across the terrain." ) of contained he is right.

Backed up by both the General and his Secretary of Defense....and the article by poiltifact.

Nothing to see here....moving on.

Gern Blansten

dignin said:

You really need to read these articles before you post them.

In Obamas context ("What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq. And in Syria they'll come in, they'll leave. But you don't see this systematic march by ISIL across the terrain." ) of contained he is right.

Backed up by both the General and his Secretary of Defense....and the article by poiltifact.

Nothing to see here....moving on.

exactly...anyone who pays even partial attention sees that the "contained" comments have been butchered as hell.

Obama was right...as usual

BS44325

Obama's being undercut because nobody in DC had any faith in him anymore. This is bipartisan. He's stopped leading and plans on just riding out the rest of his term. Clint Eastwood's empty chair is now running the show.

Gern Blansten

BS44325 said:

Obama's being undercut because nobody in DC had any faith in him anymore. This is bipartisan. He's stopped leading and plans on just riding out the rest of his term. Clint Eastwood's empty chair is now running the show.

yeah right...if he issues an executive order on guns will you change your mind?

JimmyV

Obama is being undercut from the right because despite of all the rah-rah wave the flag pro-America bullshit we hear from Republicans, none of it matters in the face of political opportunism.

ldent42

That's Obama's secret wrestling name.

BS44325

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Obama's being undercut because nobody in DC had any faith in him anymore. This is bipartisan. He's stopped leading and plans on just riding out the rest of his term. Clint Eastwood's empty chair is now running the show.

yeah right...if he issues an executive order on guns will you change your mind?

Executive order's in a system of checks and balances is not leading.

Gern Blansten

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Obama's being undercut because nobody in DC had any faith in him anymore. This is bipartisan. He's stopped leading and plans on just riding out the rest of his term. Clint Eastwood's empty chair is now running the show.

yeah right...if he issues an executive order on guns will you change your mind?

Executive order's in a system of checks and balances is not leading.

Disagree...if the majority of the country supports it and Congress is unable to do anything then a leader makes it happen any way he can.

BS44325

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Obama's being undercut because nobody in DC had any faith in him anymore. This is bipartisan. He's stopped leading and plans on just riding out the rest of his term. Clint Eastwood's empty chair is now running the show.

yeah right...if he issues an executive order on guns will you change your mind?

Executive order's in a system of checks and balances is not leading.

Disagree...if the majority of the country supports it and Congress is unable to do anything then a leader makes it happen any way he can.

Well a majority keeps voting for a republican congress, governors and state houses...how do you explain that?

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Obama's being undercut because nobody in DC had any faith in him anymore. This is bipartisan. He's stopped leading and plans on just riding out the rest of his term. Clint Eastwood's empty chair is now running the show.

yeah right...if he issues an executive order on guns will you change your mind?

Executive order's in a system of checks and balances is not leading.

Disagree...if the majority of the country supports it and Congress is unable to do anything then a leader makes it happen any way he can.

Well a majority keeps voting for a republican congress, governors and state houses...how do you explain that?

I feel like it's simply a "the grass is always greener" complex. Basically, a lot of voters are dumb and fickle. But let's not underestimate how corrupt the members of Congress are. The behind the scenes drama as they weasel their ways back or to stay in year after year after year must be absolutely outstanding. That goes for the Dems too. Fuckin' politicians. What everyone really needs is a cleaned house. Start again from the scratch.

mickeyrat

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Obama's being undercut because nobody in DC had any faith in him anymore. This is bipartisan. He's stopped leading and plans on just riding out the rest of his term. Clint Eastwood's empty chair is now running the show.

yeah right...if he issues an executive order on guns will you change your mind?

Executive order's in a system of checks and balances is not leading.

Disagree...if the majority of the country supports it and Congress is unable to do anything then a leader makes it happen any way he can.

Well a majority keeps voting for a republican congress, governors and state houses...how do you explain that?

Single issue voters or at a minimum other issues are more important . People also tend to like their particular congressman/woman better than congress as a whole.

BS44325

mickeyrat said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Obama's being undercut because nobody in DC had any faith in him anymore. This is bipartisan. He's stopped leading and plans on just riding out the rest of his term. Clint Eastwood's empty chair is now running the show.

yeah right...if he issues an executive order on guns will you change your mind?

Executive order's in a system of checks and balances is not leading.

Disagree...if the majority of the country supports it and Congress is unable to do anything then a leader makes it happen any way he can.

Well a majority keeps voting for a republican congress, governors and state houses...how do you explain that?

Single issue voters or at a minimum other issues are more important . People also tend to like their particular congressman/woman better than congress as a whole.

Maybe but this idea of what "a majority" supports can only be determined at the ballot box. Executive actions are a sign of weakness where the President cannot move the electorate to his/her position and it only reduces good faith between the parties.

PJ_Soul

In some cases I don't see that he has a choice. There are so many Republicans who are against him no matter what he does. It could be the greatest idea in the world, or the most necessary thing in the world, and best for Americans, yet Congress will still oppose it because it's Obama. That is, as far as I can tell, the MAIN problem in American government right now. I don't think executive orders are a sign of weakness in that atmosphere. I think they are a sign of strength.

mickeyrat

BS44325 said:

mickeyrat said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Obama's being undercut because nobody in DC had any faith in him anymore. This is bipartisan. He's stopped leading and plans on just riding out the rest of his term. Clint Eastwood's empty chair is now running the show.

yeah right...if he issues an executive order on guns will you change your mind?

Executive order's in a system of checks and balances is not leading.

Disagree...if the majority of the country supports it and Congress is unable to do anything then a leader makes it happen any way he can.

Well a majority keeps voting for a republican congress, governors and state houses...how do you explain that?

Single issue voters or at a minimum other issues are more important . People also tend to like their particular congressman/woman better than congress as a whole.

Maybe but this idea of what "a majority" supports can only be determined at the ballot box. Executive actions are a sign of weakness where the President cannot move the electorate to his/her position and it only reduces good faith between the parties.

Also need to consider how uncompetitive most districts are in the country. Of which gerrymandering plays a pivotal role. Not for all districts in every state , but enough so that now there are only an estimated 35 seats out of 435 that are competitive. , So when the districts are drawn to minimize the residents of the other party makes it reall difficult to vote a guy out.

The other important consideration is voter turnout and how appallingly low it is even in a major cycle.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

In some cases I don't see that he has a choice. There are so many Republicans who are against him no matter what he does. It could be the greatest idea in the world, or the most necessary thing in the world, and best for Americans, yet Congress will still oppose it because it's Obama. That is, as far as I can tell, the MAIN problem in American government right now. I don't think executive orders are a sign of weakness in that atmosphere. I think they are a sign of strength.

I disagree and you should be careful what you wish for. Should the next President be a Republican Obama will have paved the way for governance by executive order. There are many people on the left who understand this and are rightfully quite concerned.

rgambs

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

In some cases I don't see that he has a choice. There are so many Republicans who are against him no matter what he does. It could be the greatest idea in the world, or the most necessary thing in the world, and best for Americans, yet Congress will still oppose it because it's Obama. That is, as far as I can tell, the MAIN problem in American government right now. I don't think executive orders are a sign of weakness in that atmosphere. I think they are a sign of strength.

I disagree and you should be careful what you wish for. Should the next President be a Republican Obama will have paved the way for governance by executive order. There are many people on the left who understand this and are rightfully quite concerned.

Not that it has any consequence with the next president, but laying it at Obama's feet is either ignorant or willfully deceptive.
Edit: I suppose maybe you mean he will have paved the way among liberals...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

In some cases I don't see that he has a choice. There are so many Republicans who are against him no matter what he does. It could be the greatest idea in the world, or the most necessary thing in the world, and best for Americans, yet Congress will still oppose it because it's Obama. That is, as far as I can tell, the MAIN problem in American government right now. I don't think executive orders are a sign of weakness in that atmosphere. I think they are a sign of strength.

I disagree and you should be careful what you wish for. Should the next President be a Republican Obama will have paved the way for governance by executive order. There are many people on the left who understand this and are rightfully quite concerned.

I'm not wishing for anything. I'm just saying that if a Congress is dead set on opposing anything the President supports, which IS pretty much the case right now, the President is left with little choice if he feels like the bipartisanship is leading to terrible consequences. What would his other option be?? He really isn't left with one while the Congress behaves that way.
(and at the rate they're going, the Reps won't see office for a very long time anyhow, haha The Republican party has pretty much been massacred by the same fucks who would rather say no to Obama than do what's right for Americans)

Halifax2TheMax

"Our number one priority is to see this President fail." Mitch McConnell Inauguration Day 2009.

ldent42

BS44325

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

In some cases I don't see that he has a choice. There are so many Republicans who are against him no matter what he does. It could be the greatest idea in the world, or the most necessary thing in the world, and best for Americans, yet Congress will still oppose it because it's Obama. That is, as far as I can tell, the MAIN problem in American government right now. I don't think executive orders are a sign of weakness in that atmosphere. I think they are a sign of strength.

I disagree and you should be careful what you wish for. Should the next President be a Republican Obama will have paved the way for governance by executive order. There are many people on the left who understand this and are rightfully quite concerned.

Not that it has any consequence with the next president, but laying it at Obama's feet is either ignorant or willfully deceptive.
Edit: I suppose maybe you mean he will have paved the way among liberals...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/

Yes. I meant he paved the way among liberals. He is not the first to use executive orders but he's continued a trend that has gradually eroded congressional power. This has resulted in the unchecked abuse of federal agencies across the board and it is why so many people are disillusioned with their governement. The average citizen no longer feels like they have a say which leads to the popularity of individuals like Trump.

PJ_Soul

Halifax2TheMax said:

"Our number one priority is to see this President fail." Mitch McConnell Inauguration Day 2009.

Yep. Nice governing there, idiots.

josevolution

Halifax2TheMax said:

"Our number one priority is to see this President fail." Mitch McConnell Inauguration Day 2009.

Yep pretty much their mission from day one oppose everything the man has tried to do ........talk about being undone ...

eddiec

Halifax2TheMax said:

"Our number one priority is to see this President fail." Mitch McConnell Inauguration Day 2009.

Every Republican I know.

Gern Blansten

BS44325 said:

mickeyrat said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Obama's being undercut because nobody in DC had any faith in him anymore. This is bipartisan. He's stopped leading and plans on just riding out the rest of his term. Clint Eastwood's empty chair is now running the show.

yeah right...if he issues an executive order on guns will you change your mind?

Executive order's in a system of checks and balances is not leading.

Disagree...if the majority of the country supports it and Congress is unable to do anything then a leader makes it happen any way he can.

Well a majority keeps voting for a republican congress, governors and state houses...how do you explain that?

Single issue voters or at a minimum other issues are more important . People also tend to like their particular congressman/woman better than congress as a whole.

Maybe but this idea of what "a majority" supports can only be determined at the ballot box. Executive actions are a sign of weakness where the President cannot move the electorate to his/her position and it only reduces good faith between the parties.

The weakness is Congress...they legislate (or are supposed to)

BS44325

Nobody on here cared when post-W reelection Nancy Pelosi announced that the democrats have to be the "party of no".

PJ_Soul

BS44325 said:

Nobody on here cared when post-W reelection Nancy Pelosi announced that the democrats have to be the "party of no".

Probably because that's not what happened.

BS44325

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Nobody on here cared when post-W reelection Nancy Pelosi announced that the democrats have to be the "party of no".

Probably because that's not what happened.

Time Magazine 2006. Copied from Free Republic due to paywall:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1690694/posts

Here's the key take away:

".... Pelosi has embraced hard-knuckle partisanship, even if it means standing still. When Bush announced his Social Security plan last year, Pelosi told House Democrats they could never beat him in a straight-ahead, policy-against-policy debate because he had the megaphone of the presidency and was just coming off re-election. So the Democrats would thunderously attack Bush and argue there was no Social Security crisis and therefore no need for them to put out their own proposal. Some members were leery, concerned that Pelosi would make the Democrats look like the Party of No. As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. "Never. Is never good enough for you?" Pelosi defiantly said to one member. When Florida Democrat Robert Wexler publicly suggested raising Social Security taxes as the solution, Pelosi immediately chewed him out over the phone. Only one other Democrat signed on to his plan.

The Democrats won the Social Security battle Pelosi's way. That earned her credit with her colleagues, who have embraced her overall strategy. Throughout the past year, Pelosi has demanded that Democrats unanimously oppose g.o.p. bills."

Hopefully that will refresh your partisan memory.

PJ_Soul

I don't have a partisan memory. That is one instance you're talking about. I definitely don't remember, though, the Democrats literally opposing whatever bit of legislation that came along simply because Bush proposed it, no matter what that article might say. They absolutely did not do what the Republicans have been doing with Obama.

eddiec

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Nobody on here cared when post-W reelection Nancy Pelosi announced that the democrats have to be the "party of no".

Probably because that's not what happened.

Time Magazine 2006. Copied from Free Republic due to paywall:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1690694/posts

Here's the key take away:

".... Pelosi has embraced hard-knuckle partisanship, even if it means standing still. When Bush announced his Social Security plan last year, Pelosi told House Democrats they could never beat him in a straight-ahead, policy-against-policy debate because he had the megaphone of the presidency and was just coming off re-election. So the Democrats would thunderously attack Bush and argue there was no Social Security crisis and therefore no need for them to put out their own proposal. Some members were leery, concerned that Pelosi would make the Democrats look like the Party of No. As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. "Never. Is never good enough for you?" Pelosi defiantly said to one member. When Florida Democrat Robert Wexler publicly suggested raising Social Security taxes as the solution, Pelosi immediately chewed him out over the phone. Only one other Democrat signed on to his plan.

The Democrats won the Social Security battle Pelosi's way. That earned her credit with her colleagues, who have embraced her overall strategy. Throughout the past year, Pelosi has demanded that Democrats unanimously oppose g.o.p. bills."

Hopefully that will refresh your partisan memory.

'Welcome to Free Republic!
Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!'

Republicans hate Obama. Not because they really hate him. But because they have told it to each other so often that it has become true in their minds. The hatred and vitriol has become so excessive that it almost borders on being traitorous.