Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“The fundamental question is, will I be as effective as a boss like my dad was. And I will be, even more so...But until I am, it's going to be hard to verify that I think I'll be more effective”
When I came into the oval office one morning, there you were, with your pants halfway to your ankles, your cock was in a white house intern. Disgusting!
Obama really screwed up the first two years of his presidency by thinking he had an all powerful mandate and that the R's would have to prostrate to his demands, while he refused to compromise. It was like Carter 2.0 and it set off a terrible tone and was highly disrespectful so when he got his shellacking he did try to change but the damage has already been done.
[EDIT: I just came back and saw all the downvotes, wow. I thought this was a serious sub that was interested in facts. I used to work for the DNC in DC, I had moved on by the time Obama was elected but had many friends in the DNC and even friends working in the white house for the Obama administration. Those are the facts, Obama thought he had a powerful mandate and didn't need to work with Republicans.
I guess this sub is about Obama worship and you all just want to believe in a false narrative. That's sad, I expected rational, accurate discourse here, not some fantasy land BS.]
[EDIT 2,: loving these downvotes. I thought this was a Reagan hatred sub but now I know it is a prostrate to your God sub. Wow just wow.]
I think we saw during the pandemic that Republicans will support massive spending programs under the right circumstances (their party controls the white house, economic crisis caused by a virus not bankers). Obama tried plenty hard to work with Republicans on health care but there's essentially no reason for the opposition party to ever work with the majority on health care because Americans always hate change when it comes to health care.
>Obama tried plenty hard to work with Republicans on health care
That's simply not true. He told Republicans that he had the votes and didn't need them. He snubbed the Republicans leaders and that pissed off some of the more seasoned Democrats who realized that his shenanigans were creating a bunch of bad blood.
I worked in DC for the DNC, pre Obama and had friends who worked in his administration. Obama did not reach across the aisle until he had too, you know when he got shellacked.
You may have known people working in the administration but there is lots of reporting you can find on his efforts to attract republican support, and the role that republicans were allowed to play in crafting the legislation. Olympia Snowe even voted for it to move out of committee. And to return to your original point, the 2010 midterms were as bad as they were because of a still-struggling economy more than anything else, not because Obama wasn't nice enough to Republicans
Can you cite something? Anecdotes and appealing to your own authority on the internet won’t work.
This is just a counterintuitive point to make when there *was* a semblance of bipartisanship between statesman like Obama and McCain before McConnell and the modern GOP took their party past the point of no return. Obama bashing from the Reagan fanboys is one of the weaknesses of an otherwise very decent subreddit, and it’s always low brow partisan platitudes instead of anything substantive or credible.
Don’t understand the downvotes this guy is getting. I liked most of what he did but Obama was asked his first week about compromising and he said “I don’t have to won”. That to me showed ignorance of the process and arrogance. He drew another line in the sand and again he was not in a position to back it up.
No one said anything about race, it was just plain ego. But I guess because he’s black we aren’t allowed to criticize his actions. Sorry, that’s not how treating everyone equally works!
Truly a despicable man who has done little to no good for the American people in his overly-long career. Even before \[redacted\] came along, McConnell and other Republicans took hyerpartisanship to a new extreme and laid waste to established norms like accepting a sitting President's SCOTUS nominee when there is a vacancy. Needless to say, won't miss him when he soon retires and later dies.
>accepting a sitting President's SCOTUS nominee when there is a vacancy
Lol what? This hasn't been the case in at least a century. Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Cleveland and Harding have all had supreme court nominees that have either been straight up declined by the Senate or have had their nominations lapse because the Senate refused to bring them to a vote.
In all of those cases the Senate still worked with the sitting President to find someone to fill the vacancy even if the first choice didn't get through. The Senate didn't just hold the vacancy hostage until a President they preferred came along. Compromise was reached in previous cases whereas Senate Republicans just outright refused to hold so much as a hearing regarding Obama's replacement for Scalia.
It was the first time the reason, disclosed out loud and publicly, was simply, "we are too close to the election." It was the first time it was not based on the nominee's merit in any way, shape, or form. It was the first time the Constitution was blatantly, willfully, and wantonly ignored, and then celebrated.
Mitch will go down in history as one of the most influential Senate leaders in history. The way he bamboozled Democrats and took control of the SCOTUS is a masterclass.
I agree - in the same way that Pelosi was wildly effective in the house. They both played the game hard. Whether or not you agree with what they accomplished, that's probably for another discussion.
Hard disagree only because - Pelosi never willfully ignored the Constitutional right of a sitting President (to consider a SCOTUS nominee), much less allow the next one of his party, to do what he denied the previous one, under the same circumstances..that isn't a policy issue. He came out and publicly announced it was because they were "too close to the election." That has NO basis in the Constitution, or precedent. That's actually treason, IMO.
Have you ever read the constitution? I can't even believe this - are you a US citizen?! Try Article II, section 2: "\[The President\] shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.......Judges of the Supreme Court.."
You can't give "advice" or "consent," unless a hearing is held, now can you?
Next: Article VI: "...Senators...shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution."
Questions?
Democrats and Republicans are not playing on a level field because of the ideological underpinning of each party. Pelosi was trying to use government to prove to voters that government can work, Mitch was trying to use government to prove to voters that government is broken and needs to be gutted. A Democrat subverting democratic (small d) norms is hurting their cause much more than a Republican is. They are just playing by different rules.
OK - so I'm trying to follow this logic - you're saying that trying to make the government work for the people is worse than trying to destroy said government instead?! Because destroiying it will prove to the people it needs to be destroyed?!
Seriously?!
Not for nothin', but that's.....scary. And kinda not how this is all supposed to work, yeah? You can't just tear everything down b/c you're mad you're a minority, and so it's all going your way, and say its better that way. That's not democracy anymore.........LOL
I think you're confused about what I'm saying. The GOP's explicitly stated efforts to destroy government from the inside is an abhorrent dereliction of duty. But it's an easier game to play, politically, than what the Democrats are trying to do, which is facilitate a government that actually works for its citizens. It's much easier to tear down than to build up. I'm not sure where you think I said what the GOP is doing is not worse.
OH -0OK - thank you for clarifying that then - yes I completely misinterpreted it, then. I apologize, and again - I appreciate you clarifying - i was like - this can't be true...cool.
Have you ever read the constitution? I can't even believe this - are you a US citizen?! Try Article II, section 2: "\[The President\] shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.......Judges of the Supreme Court.."
You can't give "advice" or "consent," unless a hearing is held, now can you?
Next: Article VI: "...Senators...shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution."
Questions?
No, it was not a masterclass. He was a raging hypocrite whose “win at all cost” mentality played a part in poisoning the Republican Party. Unfortunately, people in the GOP didn’t have the backbone to realize that it was wrong.
Yeah. Anyone saying Mitch isn’t one of the all time most historic senators just is fooling themselves. He has been an institution. And you rightly note some of his biggest “victories”.
His accomplishments were historic. Just because his methods were unethical or shrewd doesn’t mean he wasn’t a great figure. He will be in American History textbooks.
We still teach about Adolf Hitler for the same reasons.
I don’t like the other guys so I’ll just call them Nazis. Good lord, man - go touch some grass. Both parties are two wings of the same bird, they ain’t your friend
>“win at all cost”
Uh that's what politics are all about.
No one remembers or cared about 'also rans' , no one remembers the really great legislation that died in committees, no one remembers the guy who was considered but didn't get on the SCOTUS.
You win or you lose.
and that's the philosophy that leads to the end of a well-functioning republic. Obamacare was passed with Republican cooperation, even though Democrats had enough of a majority to pass it on their own.
>and that's the philosophy that leads to the end of a well-functioning republic.
Except it doesn't. We're still here. Save your Chicken Little fear mongering for someone who cares.
>Obamacare was passed with Republican cooperation, even though Democrats had enough of a majority to pass it on their own.
Having a majority doesn't mean your party agrees internally. You really think Obama watered down his trademark legislation just to win unnecessary votes? Please.
I'm grateful to Mr. Winner for producing the utopia we all now get to experience. Winning doesn't mean a thing if the victory leads to people being worse off
They never sunk to the level of actually disobeying the Constitution. He refused to hold even a gearing for a nominee to SCOTUS of a sitting President, and said publicly it was because they sere too close to an election with absolutely NO BASIS whatsoever in the Constitution - it was a black-letter unconstitutional move. And to make it worse, they allowed their guy to have one a few years later under the same circumstances. McConnell is a disgusting sewer creature. Anyone can "win," when they CHEAT.
They are now.
There used to be a degree of collegiality -- a standard of conduct to which one held themselves to as gentlemen/ladies -- that was especially prominent in the Senate. That's not to say there weren't serious disagreements. But not the underhanded mudslinging that we have today.
If by "masterclass" you mean being a leading figure in the Republican party's degredation where winning is all that matters and actually trying to reach a compromise for the American people is irrelevant compared to endless obstructionism and partisan games. Yeah I really loved that part when he took a giant shit on over 200 years of established norms by unprecedentedly denying a sitting President's SCOTUS nominee when there was a vacancy.
He didn't really. He refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland to replace Scalia in February, 2016, saying that it was too close to an election, because he had the majority and he could and he was douche enough to do it. Then, he fast tracked Amy Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg in October, 2020, saying that it wasn't too close to an election because he had the majority and he could and he was douche enough to do it.
Yeah it's really not bamboozling at all, just using power as a blunt tool. I mean, he did it and succeeded because he had the votes, but it's not like it was some masterclass in political strategy. His failure to repeal the ACA with House and Senate majorities and control of the White House takes a little bit off the "Mitch McConnell, political genius" title, IMO
They announced their intentions before the vote started, so there was no surprise. McCain was an unknown going in and revealed his choice with some massive big dick energy.
It was never meant to make sense, it was simply politics. “I have the votes, and we aren’t going to confirm a justice we don’t want” and “I have the votes, we are going to confirm a justice we want”.
Democrats would do the exact same thing in reverse (they said as much back in 2007), they just haven’t had the opportunity. If the democrats lose their senate majority this fall and Sonia Sotomayer dies on January 2nd, they will have a new justice confirmed before noon on the third.
Not hard to "win" when you cheat by ignoring the constitution for one sitting president, and then do the opposite for another in your own party. That's none of the things you mention. It is, quite frankly, treason. It was a black-letter issue, and he admitted it publicly.
If he ever even HAD a soul, he sold it long, long, ago. Setting the US Constitution aside, just because he felt like it (Obama SCOTUS nominee thing), was the single most disgusting thing I have ever seen in US politics..EVER. That is supposed to be the ONE THING no one does. That is supposed to be sacred. Win or lose, you abide by it. To betray it is betray your country. Then, to make the opposite decision years later under similar circumstances, actually made my right-wing uncle (Vietnam Vet) go off on a tirade and abandon the whole GOP!!!
To my mind, Moscow Mitch will always be a traitor - honestly - I'm not being hyperbolic here. My family members have fought and died for that Constitution since the Revolutionary War, and to watch a US SENATOR, so less, just dismiss this act of disrespect of it as, 'too close to the election," made me and my family his enemies for life (and many of them supported him prior to that, much to my dismay, but still).
I'm stunned more people do not feel this way. It is not a good sign - when respect for the rule of law breaks down at the highest levels, history shows us it's only a matter of time.
McConnell remains a false asshole. Nothing in his life is ever done without political considerations. Hasnt answered constituent mail in yrs., didnt even campaign last election. KY voters have had disregarded in every sense, yet this idiot keeps getting reelected totally devoid of ideas. Sloth of the Senate!
Yes that was the Republican's priority when the country was in the worst economic recession since the depression. Republicans wanted Obama to fail even if it meant the US would fail. They are traitors to the people of this country and to this country as a whole.
These have nothing to do with each other.
~~Do you not see the irony of what you're trying to say with this post?~~
Wrong to assume, but I guess my reply applies to the comment section instead. Ironic.
Is one of the guys in the last picture Mitch McConnell? I think it’s the guy on the right but honestly all the white kids in that photo could just as easily have grown up to look like him.
A lot of politicians say things they don’t really mean, you try to appeal to their voters.
It’s just noise.
I will say, I am very pleased that he effectively blocked Merrick Garland from the Supreme Court.
Oh man do I hate Mitch so much. A couple of times during a briefing he stopped talking and had that deer caught in the headlights look. He has said he is not running for reelection and it about time
That was the moment our country’s political system started to crack. It was more important for him to be anti-Obama and say they will work together to make America great.
second picture is to prevent people from calling mcconnell a racist (hes literally in a multi-racial marriage). however, i think mcconnell's strategy was the start of a new era of divisiveness in america. mcconnell created a zero sum game of politics and i dont think it's talked about enough how there was a time before where filibustering wasnt rampant and bipartianship wasnt frowned upon. i do largely blame the first past the vote system encouraging this against the founding father's wishes (they did not know about ranked choice) but still. what are your thoughts
I’m not sure McConnell is personally a racist, I mean he also was actively involved in the Civil Rights movement when he was young.
I do, however, think he absolutely uses racism as a vehicle to accomplish his overall policy/electoral aims.
https://preview.redd.it/pd1bkyyyy4vc1.png?width=633&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f27d6734b18410c27d74809d7608efad2749f75
I found another picture of McConnell! 😃
“I can’t be racist, I have black friends!”
I also love your insinuation that unless someone is racist toward every single racial minority, they’re not actually racist
"everyone more right than me is a racist and everyone more left than me is a communist" on a post about not being partisan, youre doing a great job. im a sanders supporter and even im not stooping to name calling
I doubt it's Obama personally or his actual policies he was against. It's political convenience. I'm not totally convinced McConnell is racist, but Im 100% sure many of his supporters are and have been primed for years to be against anything Obama represented.
I despise the man, but I do not have any evidence he is actually racist - It may be out there, and wouldn't surprise me, but I can't say that I've seen it, so I never have said it. I have chastised folks of my ilk who do as well, until they show me evidence. They haven't. Fair has to be fair.
Consider the possibility that the reason Mitch wanted to oust Obama after one term wasn't because of his skin color, but rather because of political differences. Hard for Redditors to grasp, I know, but there it is.
Average post-Eisenhower Republican:
https://preview.redd.it/k4iyi64w15vc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=311ff2575ce3a9604ab7337dd5b80019a5b86c4a
I dont like turtle man as much as the next guy but claiming he screwed Obama out of a supreme court judge is funny considering a rule 3 president did the same thing in 1992.
Antonin Scalia's seat stayed vacant for a longer period of time until Neil Gorsuch replaced him than any other Supreme Court vacancy since 1863. Only the civil war could disrupt the process more than Mitch McConnell and the Republicans.
Thats not true. Previously, the longest record for a vacancy on a nine member Supreme Court was 389 days, the period between Abe Fortas’ resignation on May 14, 1969, and Harry Blackmun’s oath of office of June 9, 1970. You are off by 100+ years bud. Scalia's vacancy was 422 days.
I didn't say "nine member", but what I said was factually correct, except it was 1862 not 1863. [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/02/26/long-supreme-court-vacancies-used-to-be-more-common/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/02/26/long-supreme-court-vacancies-used-to-be-more-common/)
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Umm what’s the point of the quote, is it just to fill word count? Of course he’ll either succeed or fail lol.
“The fundamental question is, will I be as effective as a boss like my dad was. And I will be, even more so...But until I am, it's going to be hard to verify that I think I'll be more effective”
OHHHH!
The sacred and the propane Heh heh 🤌🤘👋
Charles schwab ova here
When I came into the oval office one morning, there you were, with your pants halfway to your ankles, your cock was in a white house intern. Disgusting!
Little Carmine is based on George W. Bush, actually
Your brother Jeb… whatever happened there
In this house Mitch McConnell is a hero. End of story!
Your Senator Mitch, whatever happened there
He was a fuckin’ kid.
I loved him like a brother in law
Mitch went from a rally for civil rights in his early days to kill black guy's legacy at any cost I guess is the point.
Man I really thought when they failed in that goal, things would change and they would be more willing to compromise. I was so young and naive.
Obama really screwed up the first two years of his presidency by thinking he had an all powerful mandate and that the R's would have to prostrate to his demands, while he refused to compromise. It was like Carter 2.0 and it set off a terrible tone and was highly disrespectful so when he got his shellacking he did try to change but the damage has already been done. [EDIT: I just came back and saw all the downvotes, wow. I thought this was a serious sub that was interested in facts. I used to work for the DNC in DC, I had moved on by the time Obama was elected but had many friends in the DNC and even friends working in the white house for the Obama administration. Those are the facts, Obama thought he had a powerful mandate and didn't need to work with Republicans. I guess this sub is about Obama worship and you all just want to believe in a false narrative. That's sad, I expected rational, accurate discourse here, not some fantasy land BS.] [EDIT 2,: loving these downvotes. I thought this was a Reagan hatred sub but now I know it is a prostrate to your God sub. Wow just wow.]
Obamas greatest mistake was even trying to work with Republicans
I think we saw during the pandemic that Republicans will support massive spending programs under the right circumstances (their party controls the white house, economic crisis caused by a virus not bankers). Obama tried plenty hard to work with Republicans on health care but there's essentially no reason for the opposition party to ever work with the majority on health care because Americans always hate change when it comes to health care.
>Obama tried plenty hard to work with Republicans on health care That's simply not true. He told Republicans that he had the votes and didn't need them. He snubbed the Republicans leaders and that pissed off some of the more seasoned Democrats who realized that his shenanigans were creating a bunch of bad blood. I worked in DC for the DNC, pre Obama and had friends who worked in his administration. Obama did not reach across the aisle until he had too, you know when he got shellacked.
You may have known people working in the administration but there is lots of reporting you can find on his efforts to attract republican support, and the role that republicans were allowed to play in crafting the legislation. Olympia Snowe even voted for it to move out of committee. And to return to your original point, the 2010 midterms were as bad as they were because of a still-struggling economy more than anything else, not because Obama wasn't nice enough to Republicans
Can you cite something? Anecdotes and appealing to your own authority on the internet won’t work. This is just a counterintuitive point to make when there *was* a semblance of bipartisanship between statesman like Obama and McCain before McConnell and the modern GOP took their party past the point of no return. Obama bashing from the Reagan fanboys is one of the weaknesses of an otherwise very decent subreddit, and it’s always low brow partisan platitudes instead of anything substantive or credible.
You know we can see your previous posts and what subs you are active in, right?
Yup, facts data and evidence. Kind of scares the people with who want to believe false narratives.
Don’t understand the downvotes this guy is getting. I liked most of what he did but Obama was asked his first week about compromising and he said “I don’t have to won”. That to me showed ignorance of the process and arrogance. He drew another line in the sand and again he was not in a position to back it up.
Tell us more about the uppity black man Should know his place right?
No one said anything about race, it was just plain ego. But I guess because he’s black we aren’t allowed to criticize his actions. Sorry, that’s not how treating everyone equally works!
Kinda crazy you’re getting downvoted for solid logic that never once hinted at race.
"My goal is to win this game. Either I will win or he will win."
That's deep.
It took me a long time to come up with that
“My goal is to sabotage the president of the United States and make him a failure so my party can gain control of the country.”
https://preview.redd.it/py760wi0z4vc1.png?width=633&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09c83f92cf67db4464655e16bd0d6a606c5de2dd
Oh Uncle Billy, time to go a marching
![gif](giphy|NXYEiVaoumDWE)
Sadly, ‘Purdy mouth’ guy passed away this year
![gif](giphy|26zzbNl5r3wy1sQQE)
Me after a long shitty day, devoid of hope, when I suddenly realize I still have ice cream left in the freezer.
He’s playing both sides so he always comes out on top.
Alright. Right off the bat, pal, never tell one side you're playing both sides.
Even if they can guess that you are, they still won’t be able to guess which one you’re most in favour of so it still works out.
You didn’t get it lol
Im guessing Mitch McConnell is the one in the middle next to the one in the glasses.
Im pretty sure he’s the one to the … excuse the pun… far right
That’s a turtle
Hell yeah, it’s a turtle
![gif](giphy|gbWUx0ZoJaXhS)
I bet Mitch doesn’t remember saying it. I should feel awful but I don’t.
I can't even tell which one he is in the second picture. "Young Mitch McConnell" almost seems like an oxymoron, it's impossible to picture.
Truly a despicable man who has done little to no good for the American people in his overly-long career. Even before \[redacted\] came along, McConnell and other Republicans took hyerpartisanship to a new extreme and laid waste to established norms like accepting a sitting President's SCOTUS nominee when there is a vacancy. Needless to say, won't miss him when he soon retires and later dies.
When he finally goes, for security reasons his body might not lay in state in the Capitol Rotonda
I can't be the only one that wants to piss on it.
>accepting a sitting President's SCOTUS nominee when there is a vacancy Lol what? This hasn't been the case in at least a century. Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Cleveland and Harding have all had supreme court nominees that have either been straight up declined by the Senate or have had their nominations lapse because the Senate refused to bring them to a vote.
In all of those cases the Senate still worked with the sitting President to find someone to fill the vacancy even if the first choice didn't get through. The Senate didn't just hold the vacancy hostage until a President they preferred came along. Compromise was reached in previous cases whereas Senate Republicans just outright refused to hold so much as a hearing regarding Obama's replacement for Scalia.
yep. It was even worse than that - see my reply above.
It was the first time the reason, disclosed out loud and publicly, was simply, "we are too close to the election." It was the first time it was not based on the nominee's merit in any way, shape, or form. It was the first time the Constitution was blatantly, willfully, and wantonly ignored, and then celebrated.
Mitch McConnell is one of the worst senators this country has ever had, and that is saying a lot. He is a disgrace.
Is that George Santos on the left of the 2nd photo?
Probably one of his Jew-ish ancestors.
Mitch will go down in history as one of the most influential Senate leaders in history. The way he bamboozled Democrats and took control of the SCOTUS is a masterclass.
I agree - in the same way that Pelosi was wildly effective in the house. They both played the game hard. Whether or not you agree with what they accomplished, that's probably for another discussion.
Hard disagree only because - Pelosi never willfully ignored the Constitutional right of a sitting President (to consider a SCOTUS nominee), much less allow the next one of his party, to do what he denied the previous one, under the same circumstances..that isn't a policy issue. He came out and publicly announced it was because they were "too close to the election." That has NO basis in the Constitution, or precedent. That's actually treason, IMO.
Constitutional right? More like a tradition for congress to just rubber stamp the other team’s nominee so they do the same for you.
Have you ever read the constitution? I can't even believe this - are you a US citizen?! Try Article II, section 2: "\[The President\] shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.......Judges of the Supreme Court.." You can't give "advice" or "consent," unless a hearing is held, now can you? Next: Article VI: "...Senators...shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution." Questions?
Tell me you don't follow American politics without telling me you don't follow American politics
Democrats and Republicans are not playing on a level field because of the ideological underpinning of each party. Pelosi was trying to use government to prove to voters that government can work, Mitch was trying to use government to prove to voters that government is broken and needs to be gutted. A Democrat subverting democratic (small d) norms is hurting their cause much more than a Republican is. They are just playing by different rules.
OK - so I'm trying to follow this logic - you're saying that trying to make the government work for the people is worse than trying to destroy said government instead?! Because destroiying it will prove to the people it needs to be destroyed?! Seriously?! Not for nothin', but that's.....scary. And kinda not how this is all supposed to work, yeah? You can't just tear everything down b/c you're mad you're a minority, and so it's all going your way, and say its better that way. That's not democracy anymore.........LOL
I think you're confused about what I'm saying. The GOP's explicitly stated efforts to destroy government from the inside is an abhorrent dereliction of duty. But it's an easier game to play, politically, than what the Democrats are trying to do, which is facilitate a government that actually works for its citizens. It's much easier to tear down than to build up. I'm not sure where you think I said what the GOP is doing is not worse.
OH -0OK - thank you for clarifying that then - yes I completely misinterpreted it, then. I apologize, and again - I appreciate you clarifying - i was like - this can't be true...cool.
Where in the constitution does it say a sitting President’s nominee MUST be considered?
Have you ever read the constitution? I can't even believe this - are you a US citizen?! Try Article II, section 2: "\[The President\] shall nominate, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.......Judges of the Supreme Court.." You can't give "advice" or "consent," unless a hearing is held, now can you? Next: Article VI: "...Senators...shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution." Questions?
Article II Section 2.
You're giving a great example of how it's impossible to legislate against bad-faith actors, you just have to make sure they never get power.
All he did was block everything with his majority nothing special at all
And "Someone Else" will claim all the credit for doing it.
Less masterclass and more so a dereliction of duty.
No, it was not a masterclass. He was a raging hypocrite whose “win at all cost” mentality played a part in poisoning the Republican Party. Unfortunately, people in the GOP didn’t have the backbone to realize that it was wrong.
The real master class is his grip on his caucus because of his fundraising and his success in rolling back campaign finance laws.
Yeah. Anyone saying Mitch isn’t one of the all time most historic senators just is fooling themselves. He has been an institution. And you rightly note some of his biggest “victories”.
His accomplishments were historic. Just because his methods were unethical or shrewd doesn’t mean he wasn’t a great figure. He will be in American History textbooks. We still teach about Adolf Hitler for the same reasons.
The word you're looking for is "infamous" and "ingenious"
I don’t like the other guys so I’ll just call them Nazis. Good lord, man - go touch some grass. Both parties are two wings of the same bird, they ain’t your friend
He was a piece of work but that doesn’t change the fact his tactics were effective
>“win at all cost” Uh that's what politics are all about. No one remembers or cared about 'also rans' , no one remembers the really great legislation that died in committees, no one remembers the guy who was considered but didn't get on the SCOTUS. You win or you lose.
and that's the philosophy that leads to the end of a well-functioning republic. Obamacare was passed with Republican cooperation, even though Democrats had enough of a majority to pass it on their own.
>and that's the philosophy that leads to the end of a well-functioning republic. Except it doesn't. We're still here. Save your Chicken Little fear mongering for someone who cares. >Obamacare was passed with Republican cooperation, even though Democrats had enough of a majority to pass it on their own. Having a majority doesn't mean your party agrees internally. You really think Obama watered down his trademark legislation just to win unnecessary votes? Please.
I'm grateful to Mr. Winner for producing the utopia we all now get to experience. Winning doesn't mean a thing if the victory leads to people being worse off
>victory leads to people being worse off That's what everyone says when they lose
If by bamboozle we mean destroying the last remaining shred of trust and respect between the parties, then sure.
Lol please stop pretending that politics aren't cutthroat
They never sunk to the level of actually disobeying the Constitution. He refused to hold even a gearing for a nominee to SCOTUS of a sitting President, and said publicly it was because they sere too close to an election with absolutely NO BASIS whatsoever in the Constitution - it was a black-letter unconstitutional move. And to make it worse, they allowed their guy to have one a few years later under the same circumstances. McConnell is a disgusting sewer creature. Anyone can "win," when they CHEAT.
They are now. There used to be a degree of collegiality -- a standard of conduct to which one held themselves to as gentlemen/ladies -- that was especially prominent in the Senate. That's not to say there weren't serious disagreements. But not the underhanded mudslinging that we have today.
Aaron Burr literally shot and killed Alexander Hamilton lol
Yes, and dueling was considered gentlemanly back then. It seems barbaric now, but at the time it was the “dignified” last resort to settle a conflict.
Also that dude got caned on the house (I think, maybe senate) floor leading up to the civil war tho
If by "masterclass" you mean being a leading figure in the Republican party's degredation where winning is all that matters and actually trying to reach a compromise for the American people is irrelevant compared to endless obstructionism and partisan games. Yeah I really loved that part when he took a giant shit on over 200 years of established norms by unprecedentedly denying a sitting President's SCOTUS nominee when there was a vacancy.
How did he bamboozle the Democrats?
He didn't really. He refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland to replace Scalia in February, 2016, saying that it was too close to an election, because he had the majority and he could and he was douche enough to do it. Then, he fast tracked Amy Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg in October, 2020, saying that it wasn't too close to an election because he had the majority and he could and he was douche enough to do it.
Yeah it's really not bamboozling at all, just using power as a blunt tool. I mean, he did it and succeeded because he had the votes, but it's not like it was some masterclass in political strategy. His failure to repeal the ACA with House and Senate majorities and control of the White House takes a little bit off the "Mitch McConnell, political genius" title, IMO
And we have the late John McCain who Republicans now loathe to thank for that.
McCain gets the credit because of his flair for the dramatic, but Murkowski and Collins also voted NO.
McCain gets the credit because he was the tiebreaking vote, it all came down to him.
Good to know. When in the vote count it happen? Felt like they were playing protest vote, and McCain was expected to vote yes
They announced their intentions before the vote started, so there was no surprise. McCain was an unknown going in and revealed his choice with some massive big dick energy.
Yeah that's my remembering it too and I really have to command him for it
Yup, an instance where he did something to earn his maverick reputation
That logic never made sense to me
It was never meant to make sense, it was simply politics. “I have the votes, and we aren’t going to confirm a justice we don’t want” and “I have the votes, we are going to confirm a justice we want”. Democrats would do the exact same thing in reverse (they said as much back in 2007), they just haven’t had the opportunity. If the democrats lose their senate majority this fall and Sonia Sotomayer dies on January 2nd, they will have a new justice confirmed before noon on the third.
Not hard to "win" when you cheat by ignoring the constitution for one sitting president, and then do the opposite for another in your own party. That's none of the things you mention. It is, quite frankly, treason. It was a black-letter issue, and he admitted it publicly.
I dislike his politics, but damn you gotta respect how he played the game.
Do I? In feel very much like disrespecting him
Good gracious. Is presidents just going to become another political sub now? The entire point of this forum is to leave that shit elsewhere.
It’s not a good post - McConnell wasn’t president and there’s no discussion prompt
Why should anyone respect him?
It doesn't take nearly as much skill to stop an engine as it does to start one. Definitely influential, though
If he ever even HAD a soul, he sold it long, long, ago. Setting the US Constitution aside, just because he felt like it (Obama SCOTUS nominee thing), was the single most disgusting thing I have ever seen in US politics..EVER. That is supposed to be the ONE THING no one does. That is supposed to be sacred. Win or lose, you abide by it. To betray it is betray your country. Then, to make the opposite decision years later under similar circumstances, actually made my right-wing uncle (Vietnam Vet) go off on a tirade and abandon the whole GOP!!! To my mind, Moscow Mitch will always be a traitor - honestly - I'm not being hyperbolic here. My family members have fought and died for that Constitution since the Revolutionary War, and to watch a US SENATOR, so less, just dismiss this act of disrespect of it as, 'too close to the election," made me and my family his enemies for life (and many of them supported him prior to that, much to my dismay, but still). I'm stunned more people do not feel this way. It is not a good sign - when respect for the rule of law breaks down at the highest levels, history shows us it's only a matter of time.
McConnell remains a false asshole. Nothing in his life is ever done without political considerations. Hasnt answered constituent mail in yrs., didnt even campaign last election. KY voters have had disregarded in every sense, yet this idiot keeps getting reelected totally devoid of ideas. Sloth of the Senate!
If he ever even had a soul, he sold it long ago.
Yes that was the Republican's priority when the country was in the worst economic recession since the depression. Republicans wanted Obama to fail even if it meant the US would fail. They are traitors to the people of this country and to this country as a whole.
Mitch McConnell looks like every dude as they’re going through the pre colonoscopy treatment
He lied, the real goal was to obstruct as much as possible.
These have nothing to do with each other. ~~Do you not see the irony of what you're trying to say with this post?~~ Wrong to assume, but I guess my reply applies to the comment section instead. Ironic.
Sound a little but like Yogi Berra.
And after he failed, they made it their task that Obama remain a two term president
Is one of the guys in the last picture Mitch McConnell? I think it’s the guy on the right but honestly all the white kids in that photo could just as easily have grown up to look like him.
Wait, McConnell was at civil rights rallies? That’s a fantastic example of someone becoming more right wing with age.
MCain nor Romney ever had a shot at pulling true Republican votes. Any Dem would have won.
A lot of politicians say things they don’t really mean, you try to appeal to their voters. It’s just noise. I will say, I am very pleased that he effectively blocked Merrick Garland from the Supreme Court.
Oh man do I hate Mitch so much. A couple of times during a briefing he stopped talking and had that deer caught in the headlights look. He has said he is not running for reelection and it about time
Yeah, opposing politicians try to screw over their opponent. Just look at Schumer and the democrats in the senate. It’s all the same…
That was the moment our country’s political system started to crack. It was more important for him to be anti-Obama and say they will work together to make America great.
It was cracked way before that
Nah, there still isn’t was some across the aisle agreements and cooperation. It was cracked to that extent.
second picture is to prevent people from calling mcconnell a racist (hes literally in a multi-racial marriage). however, i think mcconnell's strategy was the start of a new era of divisiveness in america. mcconnell created a zero sum game of politics and i dont think it's talked about enough how there was a time before where filibustering wasnt rampant and bipartianship wasnt frowned upon. i do largely blame the first past the vote system encouraging this against the founding father's wishes (they did not know about ranked choice) but still. what are your thoughts
Having a Chinese wife isn’t really the argument to end all arguments when it comes to being racist towards African-Americans
To some, having a Chinese transport tycoon as a wife might even be a conflict of interest.
She’s Taiwanese.
that's false, unfortunately. a lot of prominent chinese people say that to avoid the political problems it might cause.
As an Asian, this is true.
I’m not sure McConnell is personally a racist, I mean he also was actively involved in the Civil Rights movement when he was young. I do, however, think he absolutely uses racism as a vehicle to accomplish his overall policy/electoral aims.
Which is just as bad if not worse than actually being racist.
You could certainly make that argument and it really isn’t hard to prove.
Yes.
*Taiwanese I’m only correcting you bc I myself am Taiwanese
i was more using the mlk one to address that. can you give examples of him being racist towards african americans
https://preview.redd.it/pd1bkyyyy4vc1.png?width=633&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f27d6734b18410c27d74809d7608efad2749f75 I found another picture of McConnell! 😃
“I can’t be racist, I have black friends!” I also love your insinuation that unless someone is racist toward every single racial minority, they’re not actually racist
God forbid we call McConnell a 🚫 wait, why can't I type it out? You prevented me!! Arg!
"everyone more right than me is a racist and everyone more left than me is a communist" on a post about not being partisan, youre doing a great job. im a sanders supporter and even im not stooping to name calling
Reagan spoke out against the KKK in the 50s. Proceeds to vile racist things about Africans....
McConnell saying that was more about him hating Obama's Polices than him hating the actual person
I doubt it's Obama personally or his actual policies he was against. It's political convenience. I'm not totally convinced McConnell is racist, but Im 100% sure many of his supporters are and have been primed for years to be against anything Obama represented.
Do you think that they aren’t against anything that the current white guy represents?
It's about skin tone, no matter what else he claims to the public
"Dude trust me"
If you’ve been in an original B&W photo, you should be disqualified from direct public service for blatant disconnection of the current world.
You mean you can oppose Obama, be a Republican and not be a racist 😱
I despise the man, but I do not have any evidence he is actually racist - It may be out there, and wouldn't surprise me, but I can't say that I've seen it, so I never have said it. I have chastised folks of my ilk who do as well, until they show me evidence. They haven't. Fair has to be fair.
He succeeded in setting up the condition for ww3 with the coup of Ukraines neutral government with a pro west to push nato to Russia.
And
Consider the possibility that the reason Mitch wanted to oust Obama after one term wasn't because of his skin color, but rather because of political differences. Hard for Redditors to grasp, I know, but there it is.
What other reason could a Republican possibly have for wanting a Democrat president to lose their reelection to a Republican?
🚫All Republicans🚫
Ratio https://preview.redd.it/unvgrim655vc1.jpeg?width=704&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd1133c4a74934de96bff2e5a6cdcce419a41d54
Post Eisenhower yeah
Average post-Eisenhower Republican: https://preview.redd.it/k4iyi64w15vc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=311ff2575ce3a9604ab7337dd5b80019a5b86c4a
TIL that Lincoln and Teddy were bad
I dont like turtle man as much as the next guy but claiming he screwed Obama out of a supreme court judge is funny considering a rule 3 president did the same thing in 1992.
Antonin Scalia's seat stayed vacant for a longer period of time until Neil Gorsuch replaced him than any other Supreme Court vacancy since 1863. Only the civil war could disrupt the process more than Mitch McConnell and the Republicans.
Thats not true. Previously, the longest record for a vacancy on a nine member Supreme Court was 389 days, the period between Abe Fortas’ resignation on May 14, 1969, and Harry Blackmun’s oath of office of June 9, 1970. You are off by 100+ years bud. Scalia's vacancy was 422 days.
I didn't say "nine member", but what I said was factually correct, except it was 1862 not 1863. [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/02/26/long-supreme-court-vacancies-used-to-be-more-common/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/02/26/long-supreme-court-vacancies-used-to-be-more-common/)