Obama Ran and Won on CHANGE - So what has changed in the 10 years since he was elected?

K

KingZaire_

Superstar
Joined
Mar 30, 2018
Messages
10,538
Reputation
2,030
Daps
41,747
Obama didn't do shyt he really couldn't do shyt after Sandy Hook I knew it was GG
:francis:

Edit: He deported a bunch of illegals :ohlawd: Greatest thing he did do you know how many black people got jobs because of it? A lot
 
xCivicx

xCivicx

Archduke of Audits
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
24,335
Reputation
2,710
Daps
78,421
Reppin
Atl
Careful you're gonna make the Obama stans mad

spaceXjamzZ said:
He didn't have control of the house nor the senate and was met with opposition for most things he wanted to do for some reason :mjpls: :mjpls:

Click to expand...


He did actually have control of both the house and Senate when he was first elected smh
 
☑

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Hall of Shame
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
302,172
Reputation
-34,061
Daps
611,701
Reppin
The Deep State
xCivicx said:
Careful you're gonna make the Obama stans mad



He did actually have control of both the house and Senate when he was first elected smh
Click to expand...
WRONG

A fleeting, illusory supermajority

msnbc.com
A fleeting, illusory supermajority
By Steve Benen
3-4 minutes
It’s in Republicans’ interest right now to characterize the Democrats’ congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 as enormous. As the argument goes, President Obama could get literally anything he wanted from Congress in his first two years, so Democrats don’t have any excuses.

The stimulus wasn’t big enough? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There’s no comprehensive immigration reform? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There was only one big jobs bill? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. And so on.

The right continued to push the line over the weekend.

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace falsely claimed Democrats had a 60-vote Senate majority for the first 2 years of his presidency.

“For the first 2 years he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate,” Wallace told LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, making the case that Obama has only himself to blame for his poor economic record.

I realize memories can be short in the political world, and 2010 seems like a long time ago, but it’s unnerving when professionals who presumably keep up with current events are this wrong. Even if various pundits lost track of the specific details, I’d at least expect Fox News hosts to remember Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) special-election win in Massachusetts.

Since memories are short, let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane, giving Wallace a hand with the recent history he’s forgotten.

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. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd’s replacement was a Dem. He’s right, though this doesn’t change the larger point.]

Wallace believes the Dems’ “filibuster proof majority in the Senate” lasted 24 months. In reality, he’s off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans.
 
xCivicx

xCivicx

Archduke of Audits
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
24,335
Reputation
2,710
Daps
78,421
Reppin
Atl
Frank Grimes said:
1) He asked Congress to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to a gradual increase toward $10.10. Senate Republicans voted against it. Therefore Obama made an Executive Order ordering all federal government employees to get at least a minimum wage of $10.10. He also asked governors and mayors to increase their minimum wages and at least 7 to 8 states did it on his request.

2)An immigration reform bill passed the Senate vote, but the Speaker of the House of Representatives refused to put it on the floor for a vote.

3)Gun control bill (Stronger background checks was a major part of it) was voted down in the Senate.

4)Criminal Justice reform bill which included getting rid of mandatory minimum sentencing completely died in the Senate. Which is why all of Obama and his Attorney Generals criminal justice reform was done on policy directive which can easily be overturned by the next administration.

5)Republicans blocked the paycheck fairness act which would have better addressed the issue of closing pay gaps between men and women.

6)Republicans voted against a bill that would have stopped giving tax breaks to businesses who ship jobs overseas and instead give tax breaks to those who brought businesses here.

I can go on.

They did nothing but Obstruct his Presidency from the moment they won control of Congress.
Click to expand...
Which was AFTER he had already he was already president for 2 years smh

Tell me why one of the first things he did in office was sign another private sector bailout?
 
xCivicx

xCivicx

Archduke of Audits
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
24,335
Reputation
2,710
Daps
78,421
Reppin
Atl
∆y = f(∆x) said:
WRONG

A fleeting, illusory supermajority

msnbc.com
A fleeting, illusory supermajority
By Steve Benen
3-4 minutes
It’s in Republicans’ interest right now to characterize the Democrats’ congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 as enormous. As the argument goes, President Obama could get literally anything he wanted from Congress in his first two years, so Democrats don’t have any excuses.

The stimulus wasn’t big enough? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There’s no comprehensive immigration reform? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There was only one big jobs bill? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. And so on.

The right continued to push the line over the weekend.

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace falsely claimed Democrats had a 60-vote Senate majority for the first 2 years of his presidency.

“For the first 2 years he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate,” Wallace told LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, making the case that Obama has only himself to blame for his poor economic record.

I realize memories can be short in the political world, and 2010 seems like a long time ago, but it’s unnerving when professionals who presumably keep up with current events are this wrong. Even if various pundits lost track of the specific details, I’d at least expect Fox News hosts to remember Sen. Scott Brown’s (R) special-election win in Massachusetts.

Since memories are short, let’s take a brief stroll down memory lane, giving Wallace a hand with the recent history he’s forgotten.

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. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd’s replacement was a Dem. He’s right, though this doesn’t change the larger point.]

Wallace believes the Dems’ “filibuster proof majority in the Senate” lasted 24 months. In reality, he’s off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans.
Click to expand...
Lmao yall make so many excuses for that man its really pathetic

How was he able to pass all that lbgt and immigration legislation champ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top