Frood
a true bro
Well they better get their shit sorted FAST 'cause there's a hurricane coming.
House Republicans can eat a Dick.
- Thread starter Nocturnal
- Start date
Stu Pidasole
Active member
With no judgment to anyone or side in office, is it really fair to blame them for what they think is "the right thing"?
Should we not place ALL the blame on the voters who put these people in office and continue to keep them there? Are they not the ones who ultimately are responsible?
Is it not the " give me, let me have, I want, I need" voters who have lead us down this path?
Last edited:
Frood
a true bro
They don't think it's right. They're corrupt. Duh.
BigMattTheHobo
Mexican and fabulous
Yes extreme is better. I even used that earlier in this thread. But I feel fringe still works when describing their ideology.
I think fringe is accurate as those guys are much farther to the right than the average conservative.
Just because they are "allowed" to do this doesn't make it right or fair, or that it isn't causing major damage to the nation.
Looks like the fallout is coming faster than I had thought. When Grover Nordquist, the self-appointed leader of the "burn it all down" wing of the fiscal republican party, comes at you for burning it all down, you know you've fucked something up.
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/norquist-cruz-shutdown-plan/2013/10/03/id/529177?promo_code=125BD-1&utm_source=125BDTelegraph_Media_Group&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/norquist-cruz-shutdown-plan/2013/10/03/id/529177?promo_code=125BD-1&utm_source=125BDTelegraph_Media_Group&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1
King Weenie
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10
The main issue here is gerrymandering. It's so blatantly obvious to me that fixing this issue would fix a lot of our problems that it's becoming noticeably absent from political discussions (repealing Citizen's United is another one, but that's a different topic).
Now, both sides gerrymander**. However, there would be no power behind the Tea Party movement without gerrymandering. Period. Their districts are visibly gerrymandered in a way which allows rich, elites to consume poor minorities and basically deprive entire sub-cultures of their voting power. What this results in is a tyranny of the minority issue (NOTE: this phenomenon is what makes it so hard to pass a constitutional amendment, for instance). So the argument that "Oh well they're just doing what their constituents ask for" is a red herring. It just detracts from the real argument of "these people wouldn't be in office if it weren't for subjective gerrymandering".
I'm not saying that computers are the end all, be all of gerrymandering issues. (Here's a fantastic critique by two very well-respected legal scholars about that.). However, I think they should at least be used to detect egregious gerrymanders and increase transparency in the redistricting process. Because right now the system is pretty much a candy shop grab bag for whoever gets there first.
**There are some analysts who think that the Republicans are far and away the biggest gerrymanderers.
EDIT: That said, yes it's legal. But for a party that prides itself on being American, this is a very un-American thing to do.
Now, both sides gerrymander**. However, there would be no power behind the Tea Party movement without gerrymandering. Period. Their districts are visibly gerrymandered in a way which allows rich, elites to consume poor minorities and basically deprive entire sub-cultures of their voting power. What this results in is a tyranny of the minority issue (NOTE: this phenomenon is what makes it so hard to pass a constitutional amendment, for instance). So the argument that "Oh well they're just doing what their constituents ask for" is a red herring. It just detracts from the real argument of "these people wouldn't be in office if it weren't for subjective gerrymandering".
I'm not saying that computers are the end all, be all of gerrymandering issues. (Here's a fantastic critique by two very well-respected legal scholars about that.). However, I think they should at least be used to detect egregious gerrymanders and increase transparency in the redistricting process. Because right now the system is pretty much a candy shop grab bag for whoever gets there first.
**There are some analysts who think that the Republicans are far and away the biggest gerrymanderers.
EDIT: That said, yes it's legal. But for a party that prides itself on being American, this is a very un-American thing to do.
Last edited:
Clara... ?
reggie jax
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 32
Well, it seems that this is sort of a new tactic, to use the budget as leverage for a separate legislative battle. So it seems like the system hasn't had this problem up until now because nobody went ahead and set the precedent that this was an acceptable tactic. I think the fact that it could be the Democrats who do it the next time is exactly the point. It's not a good precedent to set because it basically undermines the legislative process. If those who are setting it face no sort of political consequence then that only solidifies it as a legitimate tactic.
Expand on that if you would. It seems that so long as we require the approval of congress to pass a budget, this type of tactic is going to be a possibility. How would you simplify this system to make it so this isn't a problem?
FenderBender
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 100
But what is the political consequence? We heard the same thing about filibusters on Senate appointments. National polls may reflect disapproval of the tactic, but these people will not lose their seats because of it. And I agree that likewise Democrats will do it next time. And a different set of people will be outraged. Congress will say that they're only doing what Republicans did, and our representatives will become less representative.
It points to why a large federal government is problematic. The CR is in and of itself an effect of congress not being able to pass a true budget bill. As congress gets more powerful it gets more divisive. And if we can't agree on how we're going to do anything in any meaningful lasting way then we probably shouldn't be doing it. Even if the ACA is popular at the moment, the next time the Republicans ride a tide of dissatisfaction back in to power it's not unforeseeable that it could be gone. In the end, I don't think things like the ACA, Social Security, or Medicare inspire a lot of faith in their stability, which is what they're supposed to be there for.
Just read the shutdown can cost amuhrka up to 50 billion this month. Hell, for that amount y'all can convert to the metric system.
I just hate it when godless socialist Europeans are right. It really sticks in my craw.
Frood
a true bro
They still owe us for bailing them out of WWII
BigMattTheHobo
Mexican and fabulous
b-b-but muh soviets
Frood
a true bro
You sound like a Canadian with a speech impediment crying about his napkins.
Part of it was struck down as unconstitutional, the section that sanctions states for not expanding Medicare.
And both parties are responsible for the shutdown. The Dems are being just as stubborn as the Repubs. Negotiation takes more than one and the Repubs saying no to Obamacare is no different than the Dems refusing to negotiate if Obamacare is brought up.
BTW, if you want to get around the ACA fines for not having group insurance for you employees...reduce everyone to 20 hours and double your staff.
Last edited:
Good. It was fixed by the Supreme Court! The system works!
Bullfuckingshit. The Senate has been trying to bring the House into negotiations for months, and every time were rebuffed.
Here's my suggestion for Obama: "You want to negotiate? Fine. For delaying the individual mandate for a year, I want a ban on all semi-automatic weapons. Your move, Kasparov."
I don't support the ban, nor do I tacitly support the ACA. I support repealing ALL government involvement in health care, going all the way back to the beginning. But since that doesn't seem to be an option, I support the correction of the totally fucked up system we live under right now, so the ACA is a start.
The minority of the minority party is absolutely tying the repeal of an existing law to budget and debt debates. That's royally fucked up, and not how the system was intended. We can argue about the letter of the law, sure, but they are fucking up the spirit. Simply put, why negotiate over a law that is, wait for it, already a law? That's idiotic!
Have fun with all that. You make it sound so fucking simple, but you're smart, you know that your overhead goes up, your headaches go up, and the whole thing gets WAY complicated. Businesses will figure out the best way to save money, and that will be to maintain the status quo as rates drop, as is actually happening, right now. First time in 10 years our health care plan costs haven't gone up 5-10%. Holy shit, they might have gotten this one accidentally right!
The ACA is an incomplete plan that MUST be cleaned up along the way. Obstructionism, however, is way worse for everyone than trying to fix it.
You owe us for the founding of your nation.
And things might have turned out better in the end if the Germans had won the war anyway.
BigMattTheHobo
Mexican and fabulous
This is basically the bottom line.
And we have to remember, the tea party has been anti government from the start.
Schumer is an ass, but his summation is correct here: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/government-shutdown-chuck-schumer-tea-party-97921.html
Many tea party members, including politicians, have spoken openly about shutting down government. This has been the plan all along. Obamacare just provided a convenient vehicle for it.
The GOP is acting childish. They're trying to kill a bill that has been upheld by the supreme court, upheld 40+ times in congress and supported enough to get Obama reelected by shutting down the government. The Dems have no reason to compromise on this because it's been upheld by every branch of our government. This is like saying, "sell me your house for $1 or I'll burn it down.". The homeowner has all the hand in this situation. The homeowner has no real incentive to negotiate unless he wants to give in to the threat. The same thing happened here. The Dems have no reason to negotiate because ACA has been challenged and upheld over and over and over, so the GOP came along and said, "give in or we'll burn down the house"
When you're in a position of power (as are the Dems with ACA surviving numerous challenges), it makes no sense to give in to threats. Sure, the GOP is using the shutdown as a negotiation tactic, but it seems completely ineffective and will lead to them losing more support. It's also a childish, short sighted approach and in the mean time, average Americans are being negatively impacted.
They need to move on and concentrate on winning elections. That's the only way they'll get it repealed. The tactic they're using will only hurt them.
Last edited:
Fixed for the reality of the situation.