Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Sad but true, the Democrats have become the new party of no   ( nytimes.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1626 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Mar 2017 at 9:28 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-03-14 08:09:39 AM  
Some things are worth saying "no" to.  Screwing over Americans and dismantling America are both very good things to say "no" to.
 
2017-03-14 08:43:27 AM  
D: We'd like to appoint a Supreme Court Justice to fill that ninth seat.
R: No, and we're not even going to let you if you with the Presidency again.

R: We'd like to take health insurance away from 24M people, give the wealthy a huge tax cut, appoint a confirmed racist to Attorney General, and appoint a woman passionate about dismantling public schools to head the Department of Education.
D: No, those are all really, really bad policies and here's why...

Media: BSAB NEW PARTY OF NO OPTICS OPTICS EMAILS
 
2017-03-14 08:44:39 AM  
When Democrats were in power, the Republicans were the party of No to helping others, No to protecting freedoms, No to expanding liberty, No to protecting the environment, No to making kids eat vegetables for fark's sake.

Now that Republicans are in power, the Democrats are the party of No to collusion with our enemies, No to corruption, No to fascism, No to treason, No to abandoning the needy, No to punishing the poor for being poor, and No to dismantling the government in favor of actual Nazis.

Great.
 
2017-03-14 08:55:57 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


When images like this resonate as being an accurate depiction of the President, yeah someone has to be the adult and say No.
 
2017-03-14 08:59:43 AM  

PirateKing: When Democrats were in power, the Republicans were the party of No to helping others, No to protecting freedoms, No to expanding liberty, No to protecting the environment, No to making kids eat vegetables for fark's sake.


I remember that.  There was never ending shiat given to Michelle Obama for advocating healthier eating.  And now we have a First Lady whose cause is, apparently, not having to smell the stinky peasants for too long and it's all cool.
 
2017-03-14 09:12:52 AM  

UberDave: PirateKing: When Democrats were in power, the Republicans were the party of No to helping others, No to protecting freedoms, No to expanding liberty, No to protecting the environment, No to making kids eat vegetables for fark's sake.

I remember that.  There was never ending shiat given to Michelle Obama for advocating healthier eating.  And now we have a First Lady whose cause is, apparently, not having to smell the stinky peasants for too long and it's all cool.


Actually, Melania's cause is to stop online bullying. Really.

You can't make this stuff up.
 
2017-03-14 09:14:41 AM  
fark off. The GOP just spent the last 8 years opposing everything the Democrats were doing and refused to compromise essentially because they were mad a black man was in the White House. The Democrats opposing Trump and the GOP trying to dismantle the Federal government and screw over the American people is not the same thing.
 
2017-03-14 09:24:10 AM  
I thought that dissent was highest degree of patriotism?

Countered by why do Democrats hate America so much?
 
2017-03-14 09:30:01 AM  
We get it. He's orange.
 
2017-03-14 09:30:06 AM  
Sad? More like Sad!
 
2017-03-14 09:31:20 AM  
Democrats say they want to help poor people getting screwed over by moneyed interests, but it turns out that they just want to help poor people getting screwed over by moneyed interests.  What a bunch of hypocrites.

Sad!
 
2017-03-14 09:31:34 AM  
"Why are democrats trying to prevent literal Nazis from enacting horrendous legislation?"
 
2017-03-14 09:32:44 AM  
A prime example of just how lazy the media is in its narratives.
 
2017-03-14 09:33:13 AM  
No, you can't rape my family and burn my house down.
Sorry to be so negative.
 
2017-03-14 09:34:04 AM  

PirateKing: When Democrats were in power, the Republicans were the party of No to helping others, No to protecting freedoms, No to expanding liberty, No to protecting the environment, No to making kids eat vegetables for fark's sake.

Now that Republicans are in power, the Democrats are the party of No to collusion with our enemies, No to corruption, No to fascism, No to treason, No to abandoning the needy, No to punishing the poor for being poor, and No to dismantling the government in favor of actual Nazis.

Great.


BSAB, basically.
 
2017-03-14 09:34:08 AM  
Fark the lying, corrupt, destructive GOP.  But, I see that is already covered here.
 
2017-03-14 09:34:10 AM  
No sad, no sad, you're sad. Sad!
 
2017-03-14 09:34:23 AM  
Well, that was dumb.
 
2017-03-14 09:34:29 AM  

Destructor: We get it. He's orange.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-03-14 09:35:30 AM  
Uh, no. When a Democrat filibusters their own bill because Trump supports it, then you can call them the "party of no". Until then they shall be referred to as the "party of sanity".
 
2017-03-14 09:36:28 AM  
Tardmitter, not every issue is binary.
Rejecting proposals that make 26 million people vulnerable to financial ruin in the event of illness or an accident is something decent people should be against.

But, then again, both sides are equally bad.
 
2017-03-14 09:38:05 AM  
lol, they are in the minority, that's all they can do. They can't bring any bills to the floor for votes. The "Party of NO" label stuck to Republicans because they controlled either the House or the Senate, or both, for the last 6 years, but still never brought forward any respectable ideas
 
2017-03-14 09:39:01 AM  
Has anyone argued that the arbitrary, obstructionist Republican "no" is different than the not wanting to stick a fork into an electrical outlet "no"?  Of course they have.
 
2017-03-14 09:39:36 AM  
'I want to rape your wife and kill your kids.'
'No!'
'How about I just put the tip in?  Why won't you work with us?'
 
2017-03-14 09:39:36 AM  

stoli n coke: Tardmitter, not every issue is binary.
Rejecting proposals that make 26 million people vulnerable to financial ruin in the event of illness or an accident is something decent people should be against.

But, then again, both sides are equally bad.


It would be the exact same if Hillary had won, except she would've killed those 26 million people personally instead of waiting for their health to fail.

I think we're coming out ahead.
 
2017-03-14 09:39:40 AM  

stoli n coke: Tardmitter, not every issue is binary.
Rejecting proposals that make 26 million people vulnerable to financial ruin in the event of illness or an accident is something decent people should be against.

But, then again, both sides are equally bad.


Simply saying "no", rather than offering a compromise -- such as by proposing modifications to the bill that will only make 13 million people vulnerable to financial ruin in the event of illness or accident (which the Republicans will reject regardless because that might reduce a CEO's bonus) -- would show a willingness for bipartisan cooperation, but Democrats cannot manage that.
 
2017-03-14 09:39:40 AM  
"Sad but true, the Democrats have become the new party of no"


Sad but true? Sure, whatever you say, Failtallica subby. What, are the Republicans/Trump supposed to have free reign to fark over the part of the country they don't like, with no resistance?

 
2017-03-14 09:39:53 AM  
And with everything else, it's only bad if a democrat does something. Even if it's literally a play from the GOP playbook.
 
2017-03-14 09:39:54 AM  
Being the party of sensibility isn't the same as being the party of obstructionism.

Democrats put the brakes on the foolish, the infeasible, and the broken.

Republicans under Obama said no to everything, all the time, you move I move, double down, don't retreat reload, you lie, shut down the government twice, lowered America's credit rating, and made defeating a political opponent more important than the well being of the Nation.

Keep farking that chicken. I hope you get dinosaur AIDS.
 
2017-03-14 09:40:05 AM  

hubiestubert: I thought that dissent was highest degree of patriotism?

Countered by why do Democrats hate America so much?


Get with the program, man.
Descent is the highest form of patriotic......
 
2017-03-14 09:41:26 AM  

kronicfeld: D: We'd like to appoint a Supreme Court Justice to fill that ninth seat.
R: No, and we're not even going to let you if you with the Presidency again.

R: We'd like to take health insurance away from 24M people, give the wealthy a huge tax cut, appoint a confirmed racist to Attorney General, and appoint a woman passionate about dismantling public schools to head the Department of Education.
D: No, those are all really, really bad policies and here's why...

Media: BSAB NEW PARTY OF NO OPTICS OPTICS EMAILS


And we're done.
 
2017-03-14 09:43:10 AM  

stoli n coke: Tardmitter, not every issue is binary.
Rejecting proposals that make 26 million people vulnerable to financial ruin in the event of illness or an accident is something decent people should be against.


Hell, even Trump said it's not a very good bill.
 
2017-03-14 09:43:30 AM  
Every ounce of resistance is needed to thwart the domestic terrorism of the new GOP/Russian federation.
 
2017-03-14 09:43:43 AM  
Trump voters ain't nothin' but anarchists an' confederates
 
2017-03-14 09:44:08 AM  

DarnoKonrad: A prime example of just how lazy the media is in its narratives.



Oh bullshiat.  It's an example of Fark's trolly headlines.  Read the article.  It's long but it's detailed, and it's great.

The Fark headline is pure troll, the article is one of the better ones I've read in a week.
 
2017-03-14 09:44:26 AM  
Is this the article that conservatives are going to be sharing on Facebook in between complaints about how untrustworthy the NY Times is?
 
2017-03-14 09:46:20 AM  
So, exactly how are the Democrats the "party of no" when they don't have enough votes, or spines, to obstruct?

Dems are irrelevant here.
 
2017-03-14 09:47:33 AM  

Lackofname: So, exactly how are the Democrats the "party of no" when they don't have enough votes, or spines, to obstruct?

Dems are irrelevant here.


What opportunity do the dems have to obstruct this bill? They cannot fillibuster a budget amendment
 
2017-03-14 09:48:02 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: UberDave: PirateKing: When Democrats were in power, the Republicans were the party of No to helping others, No to protecting freedoms, No to expanding liberty, No to protecting the environment, No to making kids eat vegetables for fark's sake.

I remember that.  There was never ending shiat given to Michelle Obama for advocating healthier eating.  And now we have a First Lady whose cause is, apparently, not having to smell the stinky peasants for too long and it's all cool.

Actually, Melania's cause is to stop online bullying. Really.

You can't make this stuff up.


It's a subtle "fark you Donald"
 
2017-03-14 09:48:50 AM  
Huh. That was an interesting article. It's the first time I've heard of this Indivisible Guide.

I'm hopeful that this is the liberal revival everyone's being waiting for but I won't hold my breath.
 
2017-03-14 09:49:50 AM  

hubiestubert: I thought that dissent was highest degree of patriotism?

Countered by why do Democrats hate America so much?


You know very well that descent is the highest form of patriotic and also an awesome video game.
 
2017-03-14 09:50:17 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: stoli n coke: Tardmitter, not every issue is binary.
Rejecting proposals that make 26 million people vulnerable to financial ruin in the event of illness or an accident is something decent people should be against.

Hell, even Trump said it's not a very good bill.


But they're totally gonna fix it parts II and III that they haven't written yet.
 
2017-03-14 09:51:19 AM  
Seriously though, how many of you actually read TFA article?

The first 30 or so comments suggest not many. Don't be like those conservative idiots folks. Read, inform yourself. Don't just kneejerk.
 
2017-03-14 09:51:23 AM  
Well, there's one click on NY Times I'll never get back...and one left.
 
2017-03-14 09:52:04 AM  

mrwknd: Well, there's one click on NY Times I'll never get back...and one left.


What exactly was wrong with the article, pray tell?
 
2017-03-14 09:53:47 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Lackofname: So, exactly how are the Democrats the "party of no" when they don't have enough votes, or spines, to obstruct?

Dems are irrelevant here.

What opportunity do the dems have to obstruct this bill? They cannot fillibuster a budget amendment


Exactly. Filibuster is the only thing Senate Democrats can do, they can't do it to TrumpCare and they generally don't have the spines to do it.
 
2017-03-14 09:53:54 AM  
Think of it as saying 'yes' to trying to preserve vestiges of clean air and water, health care for the non-rich, shreds of our remaining credibility overseas,  and the rights and liberties of LGBT people, immigrants, foreign visitors, people of color--people in general really--until such a time when we no longer have an insane imbecile flailing around in the White House and in his private club in Florida.
 
2017-03-14 09:54:44 AM  
The GOP wants to burn everything and relegate anyone who's not a rich white straight christian male to second class status. What exactly is there to compromise on?

Okay, we'll let you oppress taake marriage from the gays and keep a database on the Muslims if you're willing to come to the table on climate change.
 
2017-03-14 09:55:26 AM  

xalres: The GOP wants to burn everything and relegate anyone who's not a rich white straight christian male to second class status. What exactly is there to compromise on?

Okay, we'll let you oppress taake marriage from the gays and keep a database on the Muslims if you're willing to come to the table on climate change.


Blerg. Posting before coffee...
 
2017-03-14 09:55:33 AM  

mdemon81: Seriously though, how many of you actually read TFA article?

The first 30 or so comments suggest not many. Don't be like those conservative idiots folks. Read, inform yourself. Don't just kneejerk.


If subby wants me to read something, they can submit it without a trolly headline. Especially when it comes to places like the Times where I have a limited number of clicks.

/and no, incognito mode does not always work
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report