Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[mastahcheese]

Because once you actually try to do it, people say that you're trying to turn the country into a monarchy blah, blah, blah.
Despite the fact that it's trying to prevent that very thing from happening.

[Frumple]

... they could draft that legislature all they want, but the chances of it actually passing is somewhere between zero and less than zero, because the chances of it backfiring so badly legislation is put in place specifically forbidding that sort of legislation is nonzero. Assuming such legislation isn't already there, really...

[SalmonGod]

There is nothing stopping the dems from drafting legislation that makes the actions of the TEA party officially illegal, with immediate and severe consequences.

If you make members of a party that support such an action be punishable by complete removal from office and hard jail time, you remove the obstruction, and the benefit of trying. It then wouldn't matter later who tried to do it; reps OR dems. (Note, I mean the individals themselves implicated in the action, not the party as a whole. There *are* moderate repubs who are disgusted by their tea party peers.)

Instead of going for that route, they are going for MAD.

I don't know why you think it would be so simple to pass such legislation, given the issue at hand is that they're being prevented from passing legislation.

[wierd]

If your political opponents obey the laws of due process in the proscribed manner, then they won't be punishable under such a law.

That *is* the crux of the problem here. The TEA party is not using the properly proscribed method, because they know it will fail, and that the worst that they will experience in their political careers is a stern slap on the wrist as they get voted out of office.

There is nothing to stop the Dems from doing this later, with another round of MAD sometime in the future.

We have laws against extortion, and against aggrivated assault.  Why not extend those same same principles to government?  Assault with a deadly deficit should be a criminal offense.

[Helgoland]

Yes, because that comes dangerously close to throwing your political opponents in jail for being your political opponents. This is just playing the Tea Party at their own, perfectly legal game, so why do anything else?

And that's why I suggested countering nineteenth-century political ideas with twentieth-century political methods. Why come dangerously close if you can indulge completely?

[Aqizzar]

It's essentially a repeat of the 2011 debt ceiling fight, an attempt to use the financial stability of the country as a bargaining chip for a minority block of one chamber of Congress to dictate terms to the rest of the country.  Last time it was the Republican minority in the Senate using the filibuster to prevent anything from passing, this time it's the Tea Party throttling the House Speaker into making sure that bill comes up for vote in the House that would pass without their say-so.

The Senate fight last time was kind of inconclusive.  The President tried to actually negotiate, and ultimately they came up with the 'sequester' to square the circle, which as everyone expected went from being an unthinkable consequence to now being the rational middleground between both Party's demands.  The Democrats scared the Republicans into abandoning their tactic, and the Republicans got their idea of a budget (i.e. massive spending cuts everywhere) to be the new 'normal'.

Now the Tea Party, bitter upon slowly finding out in the last election that there is no vast silent majority urging them on but still sure it exists to be won, are trying to threaten the same thing.  They essentially want to invalidate that Obama was ever actually President, and since the mainline Republicans essentially negotiated a resolution without them but got what they wanted, they think if they actually go over the cliff this time they'll get the Democrats to agree to absolutely anything, and somehow escape all blame for the consequences.

We're basically left to hope that John Boehner, who may be soulless but by no means brainless, will eventually realize that this tactic is actually going to be a problem.  This cannot be allowed to become the way things operate.  It's not about the Republicans being jerks, because someday the shoe is likely to be on the other foot.  It's about stopping this tactic before anyone decide it's a good idea.

[wierd]

Because going all the way is recklessly irresponsible behavior that endangers many more people than just americans, and if either party actually believed their rhetoric about mandates to govern, they would recognize that fact.

[SalmonGod]

Because going all the way is recklessly irresponsible behavior that endangers many more people than just americans, and if either party actually believed their rhetoric about mandates to govern, they would recognize that fact.

I still don't understand what you'd have the Democrats do, considering

There is nothing stopping the dems from drafting legislation that makes the actions of the TEA party officially illegal, with immediate and severe consequences.

I don't know why you think it would be so simple to pass such legislation, given the issue at hand is that they're being prevented from passing legislation.

I'm not a fan of either party.  But I still have to acknowledge that I've never been aware of the Democrats pulling a similar stunt, and I can see no better option for them in the given situation.

[wierd]

While not of the same severity, they cockblocked legislation copiously during the bush admin. (Second term.)

I would not put it past them to be similarly irresponsible, if it were something that compromised "their" principles. (See MAD, right now.)

In regard to the senate being unable to get such a resolution through the house, it would be poitical suicide for the house republicans not to endorse, given the prevailing climate. It would mean giving legitimacy to the tactic officially, which they probably aren't stupid enough to do.

In that vein, endorsements from moderate republicans would be easier to obtain than a clean CR bill will be. While "hard as hell", I think it would have a better chance of passing than a clean CR bill.

[misko27]

While not of the same severity, they cockblocked legislation copiously during the bush admin. (Second term.)

I would not put it past them to be similarly irresponsible, if it were something that compromised "their" principles. (See MAD, right now.)

You keep saying MAD. You are thinking of one side making a mistake and both sides hurting in a nuclear fire. MAD is the philosophy that a situation with devastating consequences for both sides is likely to lead to mutual if grudging coexistance and limiting. It says that two rational actors will not attempt gain a slight or perhaps non-existent advantage knowing a devastating and painful backlash will occur, especially ones that threaten their very existence. Essentially, there is no game of chicken, because simply starting guarentees failure.

This is not the case. Tea-Partiers are not rational and Democrats will not be hurt as a party due to the damage against republicans more then making up for their losses. It's a game of chicken where the Democrats put armor on the front of the car.

Republicans blame Democrats. Democrats blame Republicans. Independents also blame Republicans. Polls come out every day saying this. I just read a new one now. Democrats, after a long period, have the backing morally and politically to wage a battle of annihilation. The Tea-Party will lose, it's just how well someone over their can extricate their asses from the fall out.

[wierd]

I was meaning literal. "Mutually Assured Destruction"

A deficit default will assure devestation on both sides. Dem's DO have a considerably significant amount of negative publicity. That they might statistically come out just a molecule on top after the dust settles, does not mean that mutual devestation did not occur.

I don't mean it in the sense that the fear of it will keep them honest; they have clearly spelled out that this is not the case. Instead, they are comitted to mutual destruction as the inevitable conclusion, without seeking alternatives.

Now's the time to invest heavily in vault tec.

[Baffler]

Because going all the way is recklessly irresponsible behavior that endangers many more people than just americans, and if either party actually believed their rhetoric about mandates to govern, they would recognize that fact.

I still don't understand what you'd have the Democrats do, considering

There is nothing stopping the dems from drafting legislation that makes the actions of the TEA party officially illegal, with immediate and severe consequences.

I don't know why you think it would be so simple to pass such legislation, given the issue at hand is that they're being prevented from passing legislation.

I'm not a fan of either party.  But I still have to acknowledge that I've never been aware of the Democrats pulling a similar stunt, and I can see no better option for them in the given situation.

Until it is abused later. I posit that no such legislation can be written without also giving the ruling party an easy (probably not completely free) pass to jail dissenters or boot them out of office. Take... I don't know, the NSA. If one party in a fairly evenly divided legislature decided that the NSA should be completely dissolved or restructured to the point that it is no longer recognizable as the spy agency we know and love(?). The ruling party, holding the executive, is against it, but the opposition have popular support on the matter. They continue to push the issue, and they are all thrown out for obstructing the operation of government.

It's a long shot that such a situation would come about, but worth considering nonetheless. And where would such a situation leave us? Would those people's seats be up for reelection? Do they just take a time-out? Are the seats refilled by appointment? All of those have pretty bad implications and immediate consequences.

[wierd]

Fillibuster, and failure to meet majority vote requirements are both well established and valid tactics to avoid having something pass as a bill.

Holding the world hostage with a nuclear investment bomb is not.

[lue]

For what it's worth, I'm strongly opposed to any sort of "kick them out of office for disagreeing" kind of legislation, precisely because of the potential misuse.

Besides, there's already a method of booting disorderly members of Congress: Article 1, Section 5, Paragraph 2 Granted, this will never happen in the House of Reps. to the tea partiers, but it's there. I also wouldn't push this unless and until we default (because if default, heads definitely need to roll). I also can't tell you who exactly should get fired; that I leave to the people who would need to make the decision.

And I do think Böhner should put a "clean CR" up for a vote. If it does fail, then the Democrats will have to succumb to negotiation (how much compromise occurs on their part is another story...).

[misko27]

I was meaning literal. "Mutually Assured Destruction"

A deficit default will assure devestation on both sides. Dem's DO have a considerably significant amount of negative publicity. That they might statistically come out just a molecule on top after the dust settles, does not mean that mutual devestation did not occur.

I don't mean it in the sense that the fear of it will keep them honest; they have clearly spelled out that this is not the case. Instead, they are comitted to mutual destruction as the inevitable conclusion, without seeking alternatives.

Now's the time to invest heavily in vault tec.

No seriously, it is the philosophy that forcing both sides to suffer hugely prevents going over the cliff. Democrats have a 2:1 advantage on this. One does not simply, suffer from a 2:1 advantage. And the Tea-Party is liable to hang themselves with thread.


Especially given your solution of, dissolution. I mean really, one day it's just dissolving the opposition, the next day it's dissolving Congress for re-election, the next is dissolving Congress in Mortar Fire. This isn't the republic of Ghargaroo, they opposition does not simply cease their insane policy just because you made it illegal. On the Contrary that sounds like the opening to a civil war.

For what it's worth, I'm strongly opposed to any sort of "kick them out of office for disagreeing" kind of legislation, precisely becaAnd I do think Böhner should put a "clean CR" up for a vote. If it does fail, then the Democrats will have to succumb to negotiation (how much compromise occurs on their part is another story...).

This. Obama, Schumer, Reid, they are challenging him right now to make good on his word that "It would not pass".