|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 08 2015 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 00:58 Yoav wrote:On October 07 2015 15:55 Kickstart wrote:
Religion in any form should be kept out of politics, but that will never happen.
But what does this really mean? I think most people take this to mean never using god/jesus/bible as justification for something. Any decision made should be supported in ways that are independent of god/jesus/bible.
All morality comes from some moral basis. For me, that is "In all things, do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Matt 7.12, Luke 6.31) For you it might be something else. But if it it "Defense of the family and traditional values is paramount" then you and I are going to have some serious disagreements. Look at the political differences between China, Russia, India, and the US. Different religious backgrounds inform different ethical frameworks.
Luckily for general agreement in the Americas/Europe, secular humanists largely adopt Christian ethics (without the intellectual framework) and assume that these are "obvious" or "logical." The classic secular arguments against moral traditionalists are precisely the kind of arguments Christians have traditionally used against their foes.
On October 08 2015 07:52 oneofthem wrote:
grouping up 'religious' society and extrapolating the worst bits to represent the inevitable dark future. par for the course as far as secular thinking goes.
Oh wait... two can play this game!
On October 08 2015 13:27 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +And only unprincipled Christians should be able to work in the army given that the only true Christian stance is pacifism, I'm okay with this- the first 300 years Christianity was deeply pacifist, which is really only carried on by certain Anabaptist groups today.
Don't forget the Quakers!
And most mainline Christian groups, while not pacifist in the strict sense, endorse war only in pretty exceptional circumstance that haven't really been in play since WWII, or maybe the defensive part of the Korean War.
On October 08 2015 03:23 Kickstart wrote:
I do apologize for my wall of text style of posting, it is something I'll have to get better at. Especially if I go back to play TL forum mafia, they hate my walls of text there :D.
Just use para breaks when you get to a transition. Or multiple quote blocks!
On October 08 2015 03:23 Kickstart wrote:
Trust in progressive ideals or similar things is reasoned out logically and historically, faith in the religious sense is, at its base, believing for the sake of believing,
Reasoned out by the process of historical philosophical evolution and debate. Oh, wait, that's how religion works too!
On October 08 2015 03:23 Kickstart wrote:
Yes, my views are based on my background and experience (deeply conservative, southern, etc), but you miss the point that the vast majority of the opposition to things like gay marriage and so on are based solely on religious grounds.
Right, but it's a different thing to say that the vast majority of people in the US against gay marriage are Christian than it is to say the vast majority of Christians in the US are against gay marriage.
On October 08 2015 03:23 Kickstart wrote:
Another point, there is no "atheistic" justification for all the things like you say there is.
Of course not. Because atheism never exists in a vacuum. It is attached to some other ideology that supplies moral reasoning. Secular humanism is the coziest to me (basically sharing a morality with Christianity), but there are many others, from Atheistic Absurdism to Communism to Fascism to Family Traditionalism to State leader worship to Opposing Relgion Reflixively for Giggles.
And Ideologies get shit done. Good shit, bad shit. But shit. People who don't have or think about their ideologies tend not to be willing to die or kill for causes. This can be good or bad. Yes, religions (and ideologies generally) will start prooblems. They also end them. Not because they're good or bad, but because they are alive. The one thing a live ideology will not do is simply sit passively like a dead fish.
(Also, as a point of information, Hitler didn't "align" himself with the Catholic Church. He threatened it into a non-aggression pact, and always recognized it as an existential rival of his regime. He was ready to take the Pope at a moment's notice.)
On October 08 2015 03:23 Kickstart wrote:
You invoke the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy quite a bit. You don't get to determine what is Christian and what is un-Christian, and you will be hard pressed to prove that there is no path from the teachings in your holy book to things such as opposition to gay marriage.
And here is where debate may be impossible because of religious conviction. To you, "Christianity" is a sum of what believers believe and is a social construct. To me, it is the revealed truth of God. So yes, I think you can be anti-Christianity while checking "Christian" on your census card. Because I think Christianity is a real thing, quite independent of what any of us thinks. Being a Scotsman is a subjective category. Being a follower of Christianity is, I believe, ultimately not.
On October 08 2015 03:23 Kickstart wrote:
while the more liberal believers twist themselves in knots trying to dodge all the obviously abhorrent things in their sacred texts, they are either being willfully dishonest or simply ignorant of the facts when they make these arguments.
Is this truly the ground on which you desire to stand? To say that Dietrich Bonhoeffer and C.S. Lewis and Karl Barth and Martin Luther King and Reinhold Niebuhr and the whole intellectual tradition of a mainline Christianity that defines itself against fundamentalism is "willfully dishonest or simply ignorant?"
|
On October 09 2015 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) stunned lawmakers Thursday by abruptly announcing that he was withdrawing from the race to become the next House speaker.
The California Republican, who was having trouble convincing GOP conservatives to support him, said the party needs a fresh face to take over after current Speaker John. A. Boenher steps down later this month.
Lawmakers had settled in for a long session over BBQ sandwiches when McCarthy stood up told his peers he wasnt the right candidate at this moment for the speakers job.
"He simply said that he didn't want it to be divisive and when it came to running for speaker, [that] he’s not the guy," said Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, member of the Freedom Caucus.
With Congress on recess next week, another round of nomination voting is not expected until the week of Oct 19 at the soonest.
McCarthy's stunning withdrawal leaves the House GOP in disarray. Though it averts what could have been a nasty, contested leadership fight, it leaves unanswered the question of who might step in to unite the party.
McCarthy's bid for the post was hurt after a high-profile TV stumble in which he appeared to suggest that the GOP-led House investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack was partly aimed at weakening Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton. Critics capitalized on the remark.
"That wasn't helpful,'' McCarthy said Thursday at a press conference. "I could have said it much better."
But mostly many GOP conservatives were worried the would be hard pressed to explain to voters back in their districts that they had supported McCarthy, who was seen as too closely aligned with the current GOP leadership.
Some Republicans were hoping recruit Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the former GOP vice presidential candidate. But Ryan has repeatedly said he is not interested in the post.
He repeated that in a statement Thursday.
"Kevin McCarthy is best person to lead the House, and so I’m disappointed in this decision," Ryan said. "Now it is important that we, as a conference, take time to deliberate and seek new candidates for the speakership. While I am grateful for the encouragement I’ve received, I will not be a candidate. I continue to believe I can best serve the country and this conference as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.” SourceThoughts?
The GOP is fucked. Like literally fucked in every way. They have no idea what is going on, can't stop Trump or the clown show. The Establishment must be shitting themselves or are just going to let the Tea Party babies hang themselves.
|
On October 09 2015 01:41 JumboJohnson wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 01:25 jcarlsoniv wrote:On October 09 2015 01:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Corrections officials in Oklahoma used the wrong drug to execute Charles Warner back in January.
The revelation was included in Warner's autopsy report, which was just made public by the Oklahoma Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. According to the report, officials used potassium acetate — not potassium chloride, as state protocol calls for — to stop Warner's heart.
Warner, 47, had been scheduled to die on the same night as Clayton D. Lockett. If you remember, Lockett's 2014 execution was also botched. A report issued after his death, found that a phlebotomist misplaced the IV line intended to deliver the lethal cocktail of drugs directly into Lockett's bloodstream. Instead, the cocktail was delivered to the surrounding tissue and Lockett eventually died of a heart attack. Source Didn't we just hear a few days ago about an execution being stayed because the department received potassium acetate instead of potassium chloride? Was that also Oklahoma? I don't see why it would make much of a difference. It's the potassium that kills you.
As a Pharm D., my bet would be that it isn't about the potassium. The problem is that potassium chloride is acidic or neutral and potassium acetate is basic. There's a pretty good chance the other drugs in the cocktail require either a basic or acidic environment for peak distribution and function, and the pH of the whole cocktail is probably balanced around it.
You'll kill them just the same, but you might be inactivating the painkillers or sedatives.
Scratch that, they're injected in order and not as one syringe, so that's unlikely, but they all go through the same infusion set according to this (who knows if it's still accurate). If they're in the same bag any residual stuff could precipitate or inactivate if the pH of the final potassium additive is wrong. I'd have to check a compatibility chart.
You also can't just switch an acid with a base and not be worried about effectiveness and what dose to use for optimal absorption (and since no one has studied potassium acetate dose for lethal injection because MDs refuse to kill people, that would be a literal pain to figure out).
|
On October 09 2015 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) stunned lawmakers Thursday by abruptly announcing that he was withdrawing from the race to become the next House speaker.
The California Republican, who was having trouble convincing GOP conservatives to support him, said the party needs a fresh face to take over after current Speaker John. A. Boenher steps down later this month.
Lawmakers had settled in for a long session over BBQ sandwiches when McCarthy stood up told his peers he wasnt the right candidate at this moment for the speakers job.
"He simply said that he didn't want it to be divisive and when it came to running for speaker, [that] he’s not the guy," said Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, member of the Freedom Caucus.
With Congress on recess next week, another round of nomination voting is not expected until the week of Oct 19 at the soonest.
McCarthy's stunning withdrawal leaves the House GOP in disarray. Though it averts what could have been a nasty, contested leadership fight, it leaves unanswered the question of who might step in to unite the party.
McCarthy's bid for the post was hurt after a high-profile TV stumble in which he appeared to suggest that the GOP-led House investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack was partly aimed at weakening Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton. Critics capitalized on the remark.
"That wasn't helpful,'' McCarthy said Thursday at a press conference. "I could have said it much better."
But mostly many GOP conservatives were worried the would be hard pressed to explain to voters back in their districts that they had supported McCarthy, who was seen as too closely aligned with the current GOP leadership.
Some Republicans were hoping recruit Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the former GOP vice presidential candidate. But Ryan has repeatedly said he is not interested in the post.
He repeated that in a statement Thursday.
"Kevin McCarthy is best person to lead the House, and so I’m disappointed in this decision," Ryan said. "Now it is important that we, as a conference, take time to deliberate and seek new candidates for the speakership. While I am grateful for the encouragement I’ve received, I will not be a candidate. I continue to believe I can best serve the country and this conference as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.” SourceThoughts?
The Schism of the Republican finally starts. ONe could easily predict a new party possibly being formed as a result.
|
On October 09 2015 02:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) stunned lawmakers Thursday by abruptly announcing that he was withdrawing from the race to become the next House speaker.
The California Republican, who was having trouble convincing GOP conservatives to support him, said the party needs a fresh face to take over after current Speaker John. A. Boenher steps down later this month.
Lawmakers had settled in for a long session over BBQ sandwiches when McCarthy stood up told his peers he wasnt the right candidate at this moment for the speakers job.
"He simply said that he didn't want it to be divisive and when it came to running for speaker, [that] he’s not the guy," said Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, member of the Freedom Caucus.
With Congress on recess next week, another round of nomination voting is not expected until the week of Oct 19 at the soonest.
McCarthy's stunning withdrawal leaves the House GOP in disarray. Though it averts what could have been a nasty, contested leadership fight, it leaves unanswered the question of who might step in to unite the party.
McCarthy's bid for the post was hurt after a high-profile TV stumble in which he appeared to suggest that the GOP-led House investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack was partly aimed at weakening Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton. Critics capitalized on the remark.
"That wasn't helpful,'' McCarthy said Thursday at a press conference. "I could have said it much better."
But mostly many GOP conservatives were worried the would be hard pressed to explain to voters back in their districts that they had supported McCarthy, who was seen as too closely aligned with the current GOP leadership.
Some Republicans were hoping recruit Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the former GOP vice presidential candidate. But Ryan has repeatedly said he is not interested in the post.
He repeated that in a statement Thursday.
"Kevin McCarthy is best person to lead the House, and so I’m disappointed in this decision," Ryan said. "Now it is important that we, as a conference, take time to deliberate and seek new candidates for the speakership. While I am grateful for the encouragement I’ve received, I will not be a candidate. I continue to believe I can best serve the country and this conference as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.” SourceThoughts? The Schism of the Republican finally starts. ONe could easily predict a new party possibly being formed as a result.
Don't have popcorn, but I have a whole bag of Cinnamon Toast Crunch to munch on while this unfolds.
|
So Boehner has literally become a prisoner lol
|
|
|
On October 09 2015 02:20 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 03:23 Kickstart wrote:
You invoke the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy quite a bit. You don't get to determine what is Christian and what is un-Christian, and you will be hard pressed to prove that there is no path from the teachings in your holy book to things such as opposition to gay marriage.
And here is where debate may be impossible because of religious conviction. To you, "Christianity" is a sum of what believers believe and is a social construct. To me, it is the revealed truth of God. So yes, I think you can be anti-Christianity while checking "Christian" on your census card. Because I think Christianity is a real thing, quite independent of what any of us thinks. Being a Scotsman is a subjective category. Being a follower of Christianity is, I believe, ultimately not.
Wait what? Can't you just say "you are invoking no true scotsman" and automatically win the debate? It's like saying "you are strawmanning." Instant victory.
|
On October 09 2015 02:51 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 02:20 Yoav wrote:On October 08 2015 03:23 Kickstart wrote:
You invoke the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy quite a bit. You don't get to determine what is Christian and what is un-Christian, and you will be hard pressed to prove that there is no path from the teachings in your holy book to things such as opposition to gay marriage.
And here is where debate may be impossible because of religious conviction. To you, "Christianity" is a sum of what believers believe and is a social construct. To me, it is the revealed truth of God. So yes, I think you can be anti-Christianity while checking "Christian" on your census card. Because I think Christianity is a real thing, quite independent of what any of us thinks. Being a Scotsman is a subjective category. Being a follower of Christianity is, I believe, ultimately not. Wait what? Can't you just say "you are invoking no true scotsman" and automatically win the debate? It's like saying "you are strawmanning." Instant victory.
Its only "Not a true Scotsman" if you can apply that to "teenagers" and "people who dye their hair." From reports there are 2.2 billion Christians on earth, or 31% of the population. So I think the fallacy doesn't apply until the number is narrowed down a specific group withing that.
|
On October 09 2015 02:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) stunned lawmakers Thursday by abruptly announcing that he was withdrawing from the race to become the next House speaker.
The California Republican, who was having trouble convincing GOP conservatives to support him, said the party needs a fresh face to take over after current Speaker John. A. Boenher steps down later this month.
Lawmakers had settled in for a long session over BBQ sandwiches when McCarthy stood up told his peers he wasnt the right candidate at this moment for the speakers job.
"He simply said that he didn't want it to be divisive and when it came to running for speaker, [that] he’s not the guy," said Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, member of the Freedom Caucus.
With Congress on recess next week, another round of nomination voting is not expected until the week of Oct 19 at the soonest.
McCarthy's stunning withdrawal leaves the House GOP in disarray. Though it averts what could have been a nasty, contested leadership fight, it leaves unanswered the question of who might step in to unite the party.
McCarthy's bid for the post was hurt after a high-profile TV stumble in which he appeared to suggest that the GOP-led House investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack was partly aimed at weakening Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton. Critics capitalized on the remark.
"That wasn't helpful,'' McCarthy said Thursday at a press conference. "I could have said it much better."
But mostly many GOP conservatives were worried the would be hard pressed to explain to voters back in their districts that they had supported McCarthy, who was seen as too closely aligned with the current GOP leadership.
Some Republicans were hoping recruit Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the former GOP vice presidential candidate. But Ryan has repeatedly said he is not interested in the post.
He repeated that in a statement Thursday.
"Kevin McCarthy is best person to lead the House, and so I’m disappointed in this decision," Ryan said. "Now it is important that we, as a conference, take time to deliberate and seek new candidates for the speakership. While I am grateful for the encouragement I’ve received, I will not be a candidate. I continue to believe I can best serve the country and this conference as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.” SourceThoughts? The Schism of the Republican finally starts. ONe could easily predict a new party possibly being formed as a result.
it would be very nice, but didn't everyone say the same when Obama spanked them in both elections? Kind of not holding my breath on that one anymore, as much as the split would be good for everyone no matter where you lie politically.
|
On October 09 2015 03:00 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 02:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On October 09 2015 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) stunned lawmakers Thursday by abruptly announcing that he was withdrawing from the race to become the next House speaker.
The California Republican, who was having trouble convincing GOP conservatives to support him, said the party needs a fresh face to take over after current Speaker John. A. Boenher steps down later this month.
Lawmakers had settled in for a long session over BBQ sandwiches when McCarthy stood up told his peers he wasnt the right candidate at this moment for the speakers job.
"He simply said that he didn't want it to be divisive and when it came to running for speaker, [that] he’s not the guy," said Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, member of the Freedom Caucus.
With Congress on recess next week, another round of nomination voting is not expected until the week of Oct 19 at the soonest.
McCarthy's stunning withdrawal leaves the House GOP in disarray. Though it averts what could have been a nasty, contested leadership fight, it leaves unanswered the question of who might step in to unite the party.
McCarthy's bid for the post was hurt after a high-profile TV stumble in which he appeared to suggest that the GOP-led House investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack was partly aimed at weakening Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton. Critics capitalized on the remark.
"That wasn't helpful,'' McCarthy said Thursday at a press conference. "I could have said it much better."
But mostly many GOP conservatives were worried the would be hard pressed to explain to voters back in their districts that they had supported McCarthy, who was seen as too closely aligned with the current GOP leadership.
Some Republicans were hoping recruit Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the former GOP vice presidential candidate. But Ryan has repeatedly said he is not interested in the post.
He repeated that in a statement Thursday.
"Kevin McCarthy is best person to lead the House, and so I’m disappointed in this decision," Ryan said. "Now it is important that we, as a conference, take time to deliberate and seek new candidates for the speakership. While I am grateful for the encouragement I’ve received, I will not be a candidate. I continue to believe I can best serve the country and this conference as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.” SourceThoughts? The Schism of the Republican finally starts. ONe could easily predict a new party possibly being formed as a result. it would be very nice, but didn't everyone say the same when Obama spanked them in both elections? Kind of not holding my breath on that one anymore, as much as the split would be good for everyone no matter where you lie politically.
And looked what happened a rabid Conservative wing of the Republican party surged the House but parts of the Senate as well. Then they shut down the government, nearly defaulted the US Government, and have managed to block Boehner in on all sides while getting nothing passed in almost 6 years. Now when Boehner tries to escape he can't even do that as the exact same hardliners have managed to oust the man that was supposed to succeed him. This is uncharted waters.
|
A split would kill the chance of the GOP to get power anywhere for decades. They simply cannot allow it to happen.
|
On October 09 2015 03:00 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 02:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On October 09 2015 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) stunned lawmakers Thursday by abruptly announcing that he was withdrawing from the race to become the next House speaker.
The California Republican, who was having trouble convincing GOP conservatives to support him, said the party needs a fresh face to take over after current Speaker John. A. Boenher steps down later this month.
Lawmakers had settled in for a long session over BBQ sandwiches when McCarthy stood up told his peers he wasnt the right candidate at this moment for the speakers job.
"He simply said that he didn't want it to be divisive and when it came to running for speaker, [that] he’s not the guy," said Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, member of the Freedom Caucus.
With Congress on recess next week, another round of nomination voting is not expected until the week of Oct 19 at the soonest.
McCarthy's stunning withdrawal leaves the House GOP in disarray. Though it averts what could have been a nasty, contested leadership fight, it leaves unanswered the question of who might step in to unite the party.
McCarthy's bid for the post was hurt after a high-profile TV stumble in which he appeared to suggest that the GOP-led House investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack was partly aimed at weakening Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton. Critics capitalized on the remark.
"That wasn't helpful,'' McCarthy said Thursday at a press conference. "I could have said it much better."
But mostly many GOP conservatives were worried the would be hard pressed to explain to voters back in their districts that they had supported McCarthy, who was seen as too closely aligned with the current GOP leadership.
Some Republicans were hoping recruit Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the former GOP vice presidential candidate. But Ryan has repeatedly said he is not interested in the post.
He repeated that in a statement Thursday.
"Kevin McCarthy is best person to lead the House, and so I’m disappointed in this decision," Ryan said. "Now it is important that we, as a conference, take time to deliberate and seek new candidates for the speakership. While I am grateful for the encouragement I’ve received, I will not be a candidate. I continue to believe I can best serve the country and this conference as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.” SourceThoughts? The Schism of the Republican finally starts. ONe could easily predict a new party possibly being formed as a result. it would be very nice, but didn't everyone say the same when Obama spanked them in both elections? Kind of not holding my breath on that one anymore, as much as the split would be good for everyone no matter where you lie politically.
I think this is what they were predicting, just took longer than many anticipated. Most didn't think the whole "do nothing, blame Obama" would work for so long. The presumption was they would govern eventually, this is evidence that not only can they simply not govern for the nation, they can't even govern their own party at this point.
|
On October 09 2015 03:05 Gorsameth wrote:
A split would kill the chance of the GOP to get power anywhere for decades. They simply cannot allow it to happen.
I don't think anyone is in control any more. They won't even let the speaker quit without a fight. If they want to blame Obama for the grid lock, this isn't' going to make the case to anyone.
|
|
|
Jesus. Some of them should just fuck it and start working with the democrats. Go out in a blaze of passing bills and spite driven compromise.
|
On October 09 2015 03:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 03:05 Gorsameth wrote:
A split would kill the chance of the GOP to get power anywhere for decades. They simply cannot allow it to happen.
I don't think anyone is in control any more. They won't even let the speaker quit without a fight. If they want to blame Obama for the grid lock, this isn't' going to make the case to anyone.
GOP leadership will most likely cave to the Tea Party and one of their number is going to become speaker, Gridlocking Congress even harder then currently.
leadership has 2 options.
Split and lose any chance of power for the forseeable future or submit and hope that their voters moves closer to the center over time / that the Tea Party stops obstructing
option 2 isn't great but its better then a split for them.
I think saying no one is in control is shortsighted. The Tea Party has proven to be the part in control over and over again. Its just easy to forget that because they have no actual interest in governing.
|
On October 09 2015 03:23 Plansix wrote:Jesus. Some of them should just fuck it and start working with the democrats. Go out in a blaze of passing bills and spite driven compromise.
I don't know how the numbers would work out but could you imagine how hilarious it would be if the moderate parts of the Republican party defect to the Democrats an mass to avoid association with the crazies?
At this point its actually a possibility which is kinda nuts.
|
On October 09 2015 03:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 03:23 Plansix wrote:Jesus. Some of them should just fuck it and start working with the democrats. Go out in a blaze of passing bills and spite driven compromise. I don't know how the numbers would work out but could you imagine how hilarious it would be if the moderate parts of the Republican party defect to the Democrats an mass to avoid association with the crazies? At this point its actually a possibility which is kinda nuts.
Back when the government was more functional, that is how shit used to work. In the 80s and 90s the senate and house used to be at war farm more than the parties. The parties were more important for senate races and the president. But that all changed when the Republicans took back the house in the mid 90s. Fuck, you can look up the video where Mr. Rogers convinces the Republics to fund PBS if you want to see it in action. Its depressing to watch the hearing from back then and see how much the government was about getting shit done, rather than TV sound bites.
Edit: Also they were in Washington more back then too. They didn't' fly home on the weekends or mid way through the week. They need to change the rules so keep them in Washington longer and force them to work in the House, rather than just showing up for votes.
|
On October 09 2015 03:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 09 2015 03:05 Gorsameth wrote:
A split would kill the chance of the GOP to get power anywhere for decades. They simply cannot allow it to happen.
I don't think anyone is in control any more. They won't even let the speaker quit without a fight. If they want to blame Obama for the grid lock, this isn't' going to make the case to anyone. GOP leadership will most likely cave to the Tea Party and one of their number is going to become speaker, Gridlocking Congress even harder then currently. leadership has 2 options. Split and lose any chance of power for the forseeable future or submit and hope that their voters moves closer to the center over time / that the Tea Party stops obstructing option 2 isn't great but its better then a split for them. I think saying no one is in control is shortsighted. The Tea Party has proven to be the part in control over and over again. Its just easy to forget that because they have no actual interest in governing.
Hence the problem. One of the Conservatives running for speaker says he has no problem with the US defaulting and Government shutting down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
