You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word "fact".
??
Unless you are a mind-reader, this is not something you can "know. You can apply deductive reasoning, make inferences, whatever, to try to discern his actual motive (which may be quite different than his stated motive), but ultimately, it is not a provable/knowable fact. But, your belief that you can somehow "know" that is...illuminating.
How can you waste time writing such garbage?
You could make this same nonsensical argument about his religion.
To clarify, I stated that
"I know for a fact," meaning, I know from first hand experience and trusted second hand conversations as an employee on his political campaign staff as well as a staffer for the DSCC.
Any moderately astute political observer knew that Republicans were not going to give him what he wanted on either immigration or Net Neutrality.
Has nothing to do with my point above. I'm referencing his first 4-5 years in office.
He certainly knew that no later than the beginning of 2014.
"Unless you are a mind-reader, this is not something you can know."
And he also know in 2012 that he wasn't going to get what he wanted. So why didn't he issue his order after/before the 2012 election, or during 2014 prior to the election? Politics, in my opinion at least.
You have no idea. Like, you literally are talking straight out of your ass.
Barack Obama came into office as someone who simply hadn't been on Capital Hill long enough. He had no understanding, or appreciation for the level of pushback he was going to get as President. He genuinely thought that he could make inroads with Republicans.
You don't have to be a staffer to know this. You can read his books, or read the writings of those people who were around him.
Obama was willing to work with the Republicans on any and all issues, including immigration, going back to 2010. The problem is, and has been for the past 5 years, the fractured state of the GOP.
As to the GOP unwillingness to "compromise"....
If you ask me to give you one hundred dollars, and I say no because I don't want to give you any money, it is not a reasonable "compromise" for you to then say "how about $50", and then bitch because I refuse. That's essentially what happened.
Again, another overly simplified and thus inaccurate and incorrect analogy.
On most of those issues, the President and the GOP had completely different ideas on which direction the country should take. As a simplification, he wanted to go "left", and the GOP (rightly or wrongly)wanted to go "right". Going only halfway left is not a compromise.
And fuck the center too?
Second, Congress can only write the legislation that is part of a deal/compromise. It must rely on the President to enforce/implement it. So, any potential for major compromise went out the window as soon as the President asserted the authority to selectively enforce/ignore particular elements of legislation -- and he did that with respect to the ACA long-before he did it with immigration. They had no reason to believe his word was good, no reason to trust him, and were right not to do any deals that required presidential good faith in the execution/enforcement/implementation of the laws.
Again, this is a total fabrication.
In late 2008, following the Presidential election, Eric Cantor was charged with the responsibility of leading the charge for the "No Honeymoon Strategy;" a GOP backroom policy of absolutely stonewalling the President and his agenda,
regardless of the merit of his proposals.
Sen. Voinovich is on record blasting the Senate GOP leadership saying
"If he (Obama) was for it, we had to be against it." This was the standing order from GOP Congressional leadership from Day 1.
To corroborate this, Rep. Jerry Lewis is on record telling Rep. David Obey that "I'm sorry, but leadership tells us we can't play." When asked for clarification, Lewis said
"Exact quote (from leadership): ‘We can’t play.’ What they said right from the get-go was, It doesn’t matter what the hell you do, we ain’t going to help you. We’re going to stand on the sidelines and bitch."
TIME reported on this intransigence stating:
"Republicans recognized that after Obama’s big promises about bipartisanship, they could break those promises by refusing to cooperate. In the words of Congressman Tom Cole, a deputy Republican whip: “We wanted the talking point: ‘The only thing bipartisan was the opposition.’ ”
Simply put, Q-Tip, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I find this to be an incredibly odd understanding of how our government is supposed to function. Nothing "broke-down." There was no agreement as to how the government should proceed on certain issues, and at their core, the two parties actually wanted to move in opposite directions. When members of Congress voted, they did not agree with the President's agenda, so they did not vote for it. That's how the system is supposed to work.
No that's not what happened. Congresspersons were whipped in accordance the GOP leadership's plan to have an, at the time, obstructionist approach to the President's agenda; from the minority. At the time the GOP was dominated in the House and Senate and little could be gained from bipartisanship, politically.
But by 2010, the tables had turned, and the GOP continued the strategy to politically damage the President.
This is not how Congress is supposed to work, because Congress' job is to represent the interests of the people who elect the individual members. Polls generally show that people do not support the intransigent and obstructionist policy of the GOP. Again, Congress is choosing not to represent the interests of the people.
Had the Framers of the Constitution wanted
This isn't a Constitutional discussion.. I'm not going to waste my time on something so idiotic. Stop bloviating.
And as I said above, the GOP refusal to cut deals that required good-faith on the part of the President was a logical and predictable response to his actions. Something that even commentators on the left pointed out at the time it happened.
And this is a lie, as has been pointed out. The strategy to obstruct the President's agenda happened before he ever took office (December 2008).