You talk in absolute terms, and then use half-explained examples to make your points. With all due respect, please do not try to debate a law student on the 4th amendment. You will lose, and you're using it wrong. Let's move on from that point. Whether or not someone is right or left-wing is a meaningless distinction without something to measure it against as you yourself have demonstrated in this thread. Democrats signed onto to what the White House did under Bush when he initially expanded those, powers, was Nancy Pelosi and were the left-leaning Justices on the SCOTUS right-wingers back then....I doubt you would make such an argument. Though I think we can agree in calling members of Congress cowardly.
I You basically implied that the Heritage Foundation wrote the bill, and its an unfair comparison and even worse, it's inaccurate. The part most frequently attributed to them is the "health exchanges" which is a popular idea (though they try to dissassociate themselves from it because of Obama. There are numerous things politicans don't bother to try because they know they don't have the votes. But apparently, you're not up on your legislative history. The original house version of the bill passed by Pelosi had a public option. The Senate version did not. Joe Lieberman--a supposed progressive--threatened to fillibuster it if it did. So the second time around Pelosi did not even include the public option as part of reconciliation because she said the senate lacked the votes and because some of her own house members were turning against her (conservative dems) with what had barely passed the first time. So I'm not exactly sure what your grievance is. Obama's guy in the Senate Durbin said he'd whip up the votes and couldn't. End of ball game. Or at least mention the words public option in public?
This is an incredibly simplistic way of thinking and reasoning. Your estimation ignores political reality, which was his approval rating dropping 30 points and conservative house members and senate members going 
. If it becomes an issue right before the mid-terms those people are even more susceptible to losing in districts where the idea was unpopular and democrats don't usually win and are less likely to support it. You remove the buffer of them saying "see, your life hasn't drastically become worse because of this."
Again, you expose your lack of understanding of the American electorate. Half of those issues are not partisan issues. Those issues are not strictly "right or left" issues. More importantly, you confuse people in support of individuals provisions with their overall stance and ignore the collective cognitive dissonance of the American polity. What I am saying, is true. The problem is that you categorize issues that are no longer right-left issues as right left issues and then you misunderstand the dispersal of votes. Many things have minor majority support, but for that to ever be put into action you would need widespread cleavages throughout the country because of how and where seats are allocated given districting. 90% support in blue districts means nothing when you have 40% support in red districts and there are more red districts. Look at how Obama got less of the vote this time but his electoral count wasn't all that different, the vote totals were run up in red states, but had literal overall impact. If America = majority in presidency = majority in chambers then yes, you would be right. But we are effectively a center-right nation in actual terms.
This is just terribly misguided. I was one of those people picking up those phones and those years and it was not liberals and progressives calling alone. It was every working and middle class family. I have posted up a thread showing that Americans on an individual basis are much more progressive than politicians and the media portray, but it combats with overarching beliefs. It's why WV will vote for Democratic Senators, but not a president, etc. It's not that simple. Issues must be framed in a certain way to appeal to their notions of fairness. It's a hard sell. Further, our constitution is designed to prevent radical change from happening quickly. You would need an entirely new cycle of senators before progressive policies begin. Meanwhile, across middle America, which voted for Obama last election, they voted for a bunch of governors that enacted right to work legislation that worked against them. It's not that simple.
Lol @ Don't debate the 4th Amendment with a Law Student... what a cop out
It is a repeal of the 4th Amendment as is the PATRIOT act... since Obama is a constitutional law professor nobody should debate him on his consitutional stances? Cmon son. Furthermore, I don't absolve congress or the SCOTUS of guilt, I just rightly give blame to Obama for what he's done in terms of executive power.
Once again, I said that it was the Heritage Foundations IDEA. They popularized it and it was their brainchild. You can try and get down to the nitty gritty of what happened in 2009, which I purposely ignored for the sake of how pathetic it was for the Democrat party, and how Obama made needless concessions with a majority in both houses, but it still will not change the premise of my original point. The whole point of putting a popular provision on a ballot is to make members vote against it, then run hard against them on that provision when the next election comes around, and if people want to avoid they they don't vote against the popular provision. You're talking about Joe Lieberman as a supposed progressive and then chastizing me for not knowing the American political climate... when Joe Liebermann supported John McCain in 2008.
In the second stanza, you didn't address the specifics of Americans support for traditionally PROGRESSIVE positions at all, you even called some of these things non-partisan, when they are totally partisan. What Republican is supporting a infrastructure jobs program? Or Single Payer? I don't understand really what the relationship is between what I said and Obama having less votes in 2012 than he did in 2008. In actual terms America is NOT a center right nation. What are these actual terms? The only place where America is center right is in Washington DC
One study explains why it’s tough to pass liberal laws
In the final stanza, you agree with me that America ISN'T a center right nation. There hasn't been a progressive agenda in America in over 30 years. How can you now tell me that it is a hard sell unless it is done Obama's way, when Obama isn't pushing anything progressive? Middle America elects Republicans because they are excellent at running campaigns. They beat Obama over the head with MEDICARE in 2010. MEDICARE. That goes to show you how distorted the political atmosphere is in America. For you to say that issues have to be framed in a certain way implies that their even being framed, at all.
I really don't see how anyone didn't see this from the beginning. He said he wanted to mirror Regan. I knew dude wasn't a far left Progressive (which is why I'm so disappointed in his gay marriage crap). I tell Republicans all the time that they should be happy with Obama...he's been more Republican than most Repubs. He's a Pragmatic, not a Progressive.
with Bush on drones, now yall are dead silent w/Obama on it, or downright apologetic. Where is the objectivity?
: "you know more about basketball than me," to that reporter. If @
you trying to argue engineering with me. I'd be like: yeah, you right. But on the internet you read it like this: "How dare you attempt to argue with me." I just don't argue about shyt that I don't know a lot about. It's like VVD on those podcasts saying economics isn't his shyt. If you start making assertive claims and coming at me hard talking about, "no, you're wrong, this is a violation of this" and I respond, "you might want to not argue the 4th amendment with a law student" :obamaword: I don't see anything malicious in that. 
