But I get it: it's always obstructionism when the "other team" is doing it, and good political sense when your side benefits. You can hardly blame the Democrats for subscribing to a winning play. The Republicans have already shown there is absolutely no political downside to just saying no to everything, so why not?
They may have been holding back some really juicy stuff to use as blackmail or to further discredit her administration after she was in office (too late to play it now).
i was walking down the street, the other day, when this guy hammering on a roof, called me a paranoid weirdo, in morse code.
I think that the US needs to unite around the Presidency at the moment and give your new government the benefit of the doubt, there will be another opportunity to vote in 4 years time and time flies.DaveP
I think that the US needs to unite around the Presidency at the moment and give your new government the benefit of the doubt,
I think Obama is a really nice guy, but he is not so competent on the foreign policy issues. I think that when we intervene in countries with tribal societies, thousands die. When we don't intervene in those same countries, other thousands die. It's a classic case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.The only difference if you don't, is that other players like Russia step into the vacuum and do things you don't approve of.
An as I asked you before - and you never replied - just how do you decide where a line has been crossed after which "the benefit of the doubt" and "unite" simply is no longer justified? It's not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to hear an answer to that.
You actually didn't answer my question.
Yes, I did, but I'm unable to predict the future and therefore unable to guess where a line that might upset you if crossed would fall.
You're a smart guy, I'm sure you realise you cannot change the election result, so that has to be accepted.