Yes but Obama owned the mistakes and worked to rectify them where and when he could Meantime remember Trumps response to the Hurricane Maria? Or the California Fires? Or any emergency really
Not sure whats supposed to be wrong with thatvdeadine. Obama and biden waited until there were over 2000 deaths to declare H1N1 a national emergency and that was a full year after coming out.
And I thought a meme was poor support for a debate a) you are wrong and B) “he did it toooooooo” is not an excuse that should be used outside of preschool
Sorry but it is true. Its also true that Obama and biden used all of our reserve medical supplies for that and didn't want to replace it because of the cost which left Trump undersupplied when the virus hit.
I don't care actually. The political machine marches on and there will never be a destroyer or a savior.
So, knowing and understanding this, why can't people (who are not part of the machine) find a way to work together? These silly debates and divisive issues are just ways the machine entertains itself.
Democrats won't compromise.....thats why. They could have gotten the farm from Trump for his little wall but they didn't care. Seriously, trump has no alliances and would have offered up anything for a few wins.
I'm not a democrat. All that needs to happen, is that the people who are not partisan, (we make up around 40-50%,) need to work together to get rid of the duopoly. What happens, though, is that the duopoly is designed in a way that makes you think that "THIS" election is the most critical of your lifetime, and if you don't vote for ME, the world will collapse. I've been hearing that since my 1st vote in 1984. I almost always vote Libertarian, but they never get more than 3-4% of the vote. It's frustrating. I'm over here screaming "HEY, you CLAIM to hate the duopoly! Vote 3rd party!" And everyone is like, 'Um... maybe next time, but this is the most critical vote of my life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Why is a third party going to be any different. The republicans were a third party. Any party still has to work within our system which requires certain things so changing the party won't make any difference at all.
Yup. You are completely right. Beating both Red and Blue in the same year won't send any sort of message at all. We can't fix it. Yeah - quit bitching about how nobody will work with you. I just offered and you refused. Have a great day, Spooky.
Libertarians only get a small portion of the vote because thats all they appeal to. You won't find a third party that is different enough from the major two and still appeal to a majority of the voters. What you want is to toss the constitution and adopt a parliamentary system like Europe has.
How about a party this is fiscally conservative, and I mean for real - truly fiscally responsible, that doesn't want to interfere with how I live my life? I want to join THAT party.
Do you really believe the roadblocks are all one-sided? I'm not saying they aren't. It's just hard to imagine. I hate the phrase "it takes two to tango" because I've been on the short end of the stick when I did nothing wrong in a given situation. As an average citizen with a basic understanding of politics and even less interest (my interest solely arose because I'm a parent and wanted to understand what was going on to help shape my children's lives and futures) I want to believe that we can figure out a way to come together and find workable solutions. The constant fighting isn't getting anybody anywhere.
We can. The calm voices have to stop flip flopping and get a real voice. We go red, blue, red, blue, red, blue.... hoping this time, it will be different. This time, team X says what they mean. It never happens. I'm on year 34, or so, of waiting. I didn't care about politics before 18.
Specifically it changed under Obama when he drew the line in the sand. We have seen the republicans cave quite often when presented with a deal but the democrats don't really bargain, they blame and point fingers and turn it into a race thing somehow. They are using the lack of cooperation as a political weapon.
I was reading about the stalemate regarding the second stimulus. It sounded like both sides were unwilling to compromise. Do you believe that to be accurate or was it just Pelosi?
Pelosi. Republicans were willing to give her all she wanted but they wanted something in return and I forget what it was hut she said no deal then went on TV saying how the republicans were letting families starve or something like that.
I seem to recall that. I think there was a disagreement about the amount of the stimulus and some bailout or something. It's kind of scary that ONE person can put a monkey wrench into negotiations. I wonder if we need to figure out a way for that not to be the case.
Its not one person she is just the one who does it since that is her job. Its a joint decision by the democratic leadership and to be fair it happens sometimes when the republicans have the house also. Under Clinton it was really bad, worse than now.
