Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Merrick Garland - O's pick for scotus"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]^^Obama is in the fourth year of his presidency.[/quote] Correct. Apologies for my typo. I meant "after Obama's third year."[/quote] Actually, he's in the 8th year of his presidency and the fourth year of his 2nd term. The man was elected to lead this country twice, but Senate leaders seem to think that for 25% of a President's term they shouldn't be allowed to do anything of substance. And people wonder why Washington has a reputation for being the place where nothing happens.[/quote] What isn't happening that you want to see happen? If it's a wish list of agenda items for a particular party, that's called partisanship. [/quote] Ideally, I'd like policy-furthering legislation of any flavor to pass...at least on issues of national importance (like biosecurity and export controls) where it's simply appalling that no progress has been made post-9/11. Yes, I'd prefer that legislation reflect my own views on how to accomplish these goals, but I'd prefer to have just about anything on the books to help regulate, for example, biological research that could be weaponized...or at a minimum leave our country better prepared to handle the aftermath of a biological weapons attack. Realistically, I'd settle for a Congress that could pass appropriations bills in a timely fashion, preventing CR after CR which leads to horrible inefficiencies in government spending...and for one that could either get its act together to pass appropriations + tax bills that either don't require and increase in the debt ceiling or actually raise the debt ceiling without making our country look like it's run by idiots who don't understand that you don't get to pass spending bills telling government agencies to go run up obligations up to a certain level and then refuse to go out and get the money to actually pay for those obligations. Actually, I have a government that literally can barely keep the lights on.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics