> The thing though is, "trifecta" is difficult in practice and shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws.
> This is an illogical sentence.
You said Democrats had "trifecta" only two years (2009-10) during the Obama admin. I am assuming you mean they had the executive, house and senate.
I am saying, not controlling all three should not be a barrier to passing laws. You are completely misunderstanding me. I said "trifecta" should not be a barrier because you mentioned Democrats only had it for two years. Does the US constitution say the two chambers AND executive should be controlled by either Republicans or Democrats to enact laws?
> People would laugh at you. You're making a really dumb and nonsensical statement. (And you sound facetious.)
Well, I am glad the people I know would try to understand my point better than just laugh at me or call me dumb :)
> You "observation" was an accusatory statement that the Obama administration "had 8 years to fix this, but they didn't"
And I still stand by it - while supporting the said admin. I did mention they 'made extensive and substantive changes to the immigration system'. However, I still believe there are some changes they could have done (which Republicans would have supported) that would have made the system much better.
You're right in that there were some things that could have been achieved with bipartisan support.
One example would be eliminating the per-country limit on employment-based immigrants, which has resulted in 100+ years of wait time for India-born EB2/EB3 aspirants. There's bipartisan support for it, and it might have passed in isolation, but it wasn't high enough of a priority for either party. (Note though: the provision eliminating the per-country limit was included in the S. 744 bill.)
For the most part though, Republicans opposed nearly every bill that Democrats brought up. The likelihood of anything meaningful / highly-impactful / substantive through Congress, in the face of adamant Republican opposition, was unfortunately fairly low.
> This is an illogical sentence.
You said Democrats had "trifecta" only two years (2009-10) during the Obama admin. I am assuming you mean they had the executive, house and senate.
I am saying, not controlling all three should not be a barrier to passing laws. You are completely misunderstanding me. I said "trifecta" should not be a barrier because you mentioned Democrats only had it for two years. Does the US constitution say the two chambers AND executive should be controlled by either Republicans or Democrats to enact laws?
> People would laugh at you. You're making a really dumb and nonsensical statement. (And you sound facetious.)
Well, I am glad the people I know would try to understand my point better than just laugh at me or call me dumb :)
> You "observation" was an accusatory statement that the Obama administration "had 8 years to fix this, but they didn't"
And I still stand by it - while supporting the said admin. I did mention they 'made extensive and substantive changes to the immigration system'. However, I still believe there are some changes they could have done (which Republicans would have supported) that would have made the system much better.