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

[Leafsnail]

Well, the guy with dynamite strapped to his chest was being a bit unreasonable.  But, ultimately, weren't the politicians who refused to negotiate with him equally guilty of being stubborn?

[misko27]

And yes, the Democrats have to compromise, as the republicans have been offering to do.

Offering to stop being destructive if someone gives you what you want and you give them nothing they want isn't compromise.

And you know when the democrats compromised?  Last time.  And then the republicans come back to the well again.  We won't have functional government until the republicans stop this behavior.  There is nothing the democrats can do, the republicans will always want more.

Again, the same thing can be said of the democrats.

I do say when you express a minority view, you should now you can't simply state it and continue on. Explain how and why this is the case. I for one have not heard it.

[Morrigi]

And yes, the Democrats have to compromise, as the republicans have been offering to do.

Offering to stop being destructive if someone gives you what you want and you give them nothing they want isn't compromise.

And you know when the democrats compromised?  Last time.  And then the republicans come back to the well again.  We won't have functional government until the republicans stop this behavior.  There is nothing the democrats can do, the republicans will always want more.

Again, the same thing can be said of the democrats.

I do say when you express a minority view, you should now you can't simply state it and continue on. Explain how and why this is the case. I for one have not heard it.

Refusing to compromise on the ACA even to the point of equalizing exceptions for corporations and individuals for a year.

And how is making a stand against legislation that you believe will do more harm than good "destructive"? That's called politics.

[lue]

And yes, the Democrats have to compromise, as the republicans have been offering to do.

Offering to stop being destructive if someone gives you what you want and you give them nothing they want isn't compromise.

And you know when the democrats compromised?  Last time.  And then the republicans come back to the well again.  We won't have functional government until the republicans stop this behavior.  There is nothing the democrats can do, the republicans will always want more.

Again, the same thing can be said of the democrats.

I do say when you express a minority view, you should now you can't simply state it and continue on. Explain how and why this is the case. I for one have not heard it.

Ditto. I wouldn't be too surprised to find the Democrats threatening something vital to the government at some point, though it likely isn't going to be a default or promising to reopen the government. (For some reason my mind is flying towards Tip O'Neill as a likely recent source.)

[Bauglir]

It goes both ways. Exactly the same thing can be said about Obama.

For once in the history of politics, it can't. If this were a debate about civil liberties or the War on Terror or surveillance or lobbying just about anything else where people make that claim? Holy shit, yes, I would be on your side. But it's not.

The Republican demand is "Defund the ACA, or we'll wreck everything." The Democrat demand is, "Quit wrecking everything, or won't stop you." This is little more than a hostage situation where the Democrats' only leverage is, "You can't possibly be stupid enough to actually do it."

Refusing to compromise on the ACA even to the point of equalizing exceptions for corporations and individuals for a year.

The ACA was already passed, and the Democrats never threatened the government's stability to make that happen. Existing laws are not up for review every time a budget comes up - they've already made it through the democratic process. You want it changed, you repeal or amend it, and if you can't get the votes to make that happen, you accept that you don't have the mandate to rule and move on. You do not recklessly endanger your constituency to prove a political point. This isn't democracy, it's a tantrum.

EDIT: Tantrum, by the way, is a very deliberate choice. You can stop an argument with a teenager by revoking the consequences you threatened for, say, skipping out on chores for a week. That doesn't make it a good parenting choice. I think this is a much better analogy than terrorism, to be honest, which implies a degree of malice that I don't think is really there.

[Morrigi]

It goes both ways. Exactly the same thing can be said about Obama.

For once in the history of politics, it can't. If this were a debate about civil liberties or the War on Terror or surveillance or lobbying just about anything else where people make that claim? Holy shit, yes, I would be on your side. But it's not.

The Republican demand is "Defund the ACA, or we'll wreck everything." The Democrat demand is, "Quit wrecking everything, or won't stop you." This is little more than a hostage situation where the Democrats' only leverage is, "You can't possibly be stupid enough to actually do it."

Refusing to compromise on the ACA even to the point of equalizing exceptions for corporations and individuals for a year.

The ACA was already passed, and the Democrats never threatened the government's stability to make that happen. Existing laws are not up for review every time a budget comes up - they've already made it through the democratic process. You want it changed, you repeal or amend it, and if you can't get the votes to make that happen, you accept that you don't have the mandate to rule and move on. You do not recklessly endanger your constituency to prove a political point. This isn't democracy, it's a tantrum.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-02/opinions/42616180_1_brief-shutdown-five-day-shutdown-continuing-resolution

The shutdown has been a favored tactic of the Democrats for years.

Also, the entire reason the House of Representatives exists and has the power over the budget is precisely for this reason. It is functioning as intended: to defund legislation that is found to be lacking by the Representatives.

Edit: Time to go, have class.

[Bauglir]

The Democrats were wrong to hold the government shutdown as leverage then. I have no problem saying that, without contradicting myself, since it was over 25 years ago, and the politicians we're dealing with now and the shit they're flinging has changed considerably. If we're bringing up the past, 1990 and 1995 were more recent examples of Republicans refusing to fund the government unless their political demands were met. At any rate, nobody has threatened the debt ceiling until the Tea Party showed up.

Also, the entire reason the House of Representatives exists and has the power over the budget is precisely for this reason. It is functioning as intended: to defund legislation that is found to be lacking by the Representatives.

No part of government exists to sabotage the government if it's functioning as intended. The House doesn't exist to review existing legislation and decide whether or not it's allowed to continue existing. That's the Supreme Court's job. The House can adjust funding to ensure that priorities are properly met according to the will of the people, but that's something completely different from what's happening here. The House already agreed to the ACA when it was initially passed as a bill that would receive automatic funding. This shutdown doesn't affect it, so even if the House were intended to defund parts of the government they dislike, they're failing at that, too!

[lue]

It goes both ways. Exactly the same thing can be said about Obama.

For once in the history of politics, it can't. If this were a debate about civil liberties or the War on Terror or surveillance or lobbying just about anything else where people make that claim? Holy shit, yes, I would be on your side. But it's not.

The Republican demand is "Defund the ACA, or we'll wreck everything." The Democrat demand is, "Quit wrecking everything, or won't stop you." This is little more than a hostage situation where the Democrats' only leverage is, "You can't possibly be stupid enough to actually do it."

Refusing to compromise on the ACA even to the point of equalizing exceptions for corporations and individuals for a year.

The ACA was already passed, and the Democrats never threatened the government's stability to make that happen. Existing laws are not up for review every time a budget comes up - they've already made it through the democratic process. You want it changed, you repeal or amend it, and if you can't get the votes to make that happen, you accept that you don't have the mandate to rule and move on. You do not recklessly endanger your constituency to prove a political point. This isn't democracy, it's a tantrum.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-02/opinions/42616180_1_brief-shutdown-five-day-shutdown-continuing-resolution

The shutdown has been a favored tactic of the Democrats for years.

Also, the entire reason the House of Representatives exists and has the power over the budget is precisely for this reason. It is functioning as intended: to defund legislation that is found to be lacking by the Representatives.

Edit: Time to go, have class.

Precisely why Tip O'Neill came to mind . I think the huge concern this time around comes from the fact that the shutdown people are also threating to ruin the world economy, which tends to paint a darker tone on all of their threats.

Democrats who chose to force through a fundamental change in the nation’s health-care system without a single Republican vote when they controlled both legislative branches are simply refusing to come to terms with the fact that the House is now controlled — by a wide margin — by the other party. House Republicans have won two successive elections based in no small part on their opposition to Obamacare. The president ignores that fact only at his — and the nation’s — peril.

That's kinda what happens when a party controls both houses. They can pass things without a vote from the other side. The part I emboldened should actually read "based in no small part on their opposition to Obamacare, thanks to districts gerrymandered to guarantee those votes." I also don't think the last election could truly be classified as a "win" for the GOP, but that's only me.*

So yes, it's not like the Dems haven't threatened and enacted shutdown before. I don't deny this, nor do I like the history much. I will say though that the Tea Party is a bit scarier, what with their extreme ideology and also threatening default.

It goes both ways. Exactly the same thing can be said about Obama.

For once in the history of politics, it can't. If this were a debate about civil liberties or the War on Terror or surveillance or lobbying just about anything else where people make that claim? Holy shit, yes, I would be on your side. But it's not.

For the record, it actually annoys me to no end that there doesn't seem to be any time where the Dems have threatened to bring down the world around them for one single law. I'd really like to think it could happen on either side of the spectrum. I suppose I'll have to look futurewards for confirmation of that notion though :/

*I am criticizing the article here, not you, in case there's any doubt.

[Lord Shonus]

The minority faction of the minority party that got clobbered in the last election is trying to say "IF YOU DON"T ACT LIKE WE WON THE ELECTION, AND DO EVERYTHING WE SAY, WE BLOW UP YOUR ECONOMY!" If the drafters of the Constitution wanted that to be a possibility, they'd have just given us a dictator in the first place.

[Helgoland]

The minority faction of the minority party that got clobbered in the last election is trying to say "IF YOU DON"T ACT LIKE WE WON THE ELECTION, AND DO EVERYTHING WE SAY, WE BLOW UP YOUR ECONOMY!" If the drafters of the Constitution wanted that to be a possibility, they'd have just given us a dictator in the first place.

From what I know, the tea party isn't the most sane of parties, anyways.

Makes you wonder what kind of tea that is...

[Owlbread]

Very, very conservative tea.

[Frumple]

Honestly, it's most likely sweet tea* laced with copious amounts of alcohol. Maybe a little bit of... what, cocaine? I think that's the middle class+ drug of choice these days.

*The american sort. Not... whatever that amounts to in other places.

[lue]

The minority faction of the minority party that got clobbered in the last election is trying to say "IF YOU DON"T ACT LIKE WE WON THE ELECTION, AND DO EVERYTHING WE SAY, WE BLOW UP YOUR ECONOMY!" If the drafters of the Constitution wanted that to be a possibility, they'd have just given us a dictator in the first place.

From what I know, the tea party isn't the most sane of parties, anyways.

Makes you wonder what kind of tea that is...

I think their name The Tea Party might afford us some clues as to the quality of said tea.

[Helgoland]

Honestly, it's most likely sweet tea* laced with copious amounts of alcohol. Maybe a little bit of... what, cocaine? I think that's the middle class+ drug of choice these days.

*The american sort. Not... whatever that amounts to in other places.

I'd wager it's conservative, but ill-conserved tea, and some psychoactive mold have developed on it...

[misko27]

My theory is that someone fished out the tea the Sons of Liberty dumped out into the seaway back before the revolution.