US Politics Mega-thread - Page 363

On August 01 2013 05:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Sure, but thinking about threatening to shut down the government isn't the same thing as shutting it down. Nor is shutting it down some apocalyptic horror.

On August 01 2013 05:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

That's not how it works. Individual representatives are supposed to do what they feel they were elected to do. It doesn't matter if they're representing a minority view or not. In the House it's the majority view, and it's been that way since 2010 when the Tea Party first took off.

On August 01 2013 05:42 KwarK wrote:

Yeah, when asked to vote on it you vote against it even if you know you can't change it. You got elected to put forward the view of your constituents who presumably agree with you so your democratic responsibility is to voice their objections with your vote. But they are failing to understand that you have a wider responsibility to the democratic system, that the US government is representing people beyond their constituents and does have a mandate to make law. If the congressmen vote and your side loses then you have done your duty and represented your constituents wishes but you now have a democratic duty to get out of the way and let the winning side, who are representing their constituents, do their jobs.

Congressmen aren't elected to be superheroes fighting every day for their constituents above all else through whatever means they have at their disposal. They're elected to represent their constituents in the legislative process as part of the democratic system. If every congressman thought the responsibility to represent his constituents gave him the right to overrule the representatives of the rest of the population on issues of national policy then democracy would break down. They had a vote, he voted, he lost. End of the legislative battle right there. He can still fight it in public opinion, he can still campaign against it and next election he can try and get more people who agree with him elected. But what he does not have the right to do is fuck with legislation that was democratically passed by the house simply because he doesn't like it. That's not democracy.

On August 01 2013 05:56 KwarK wrote:
Was funding the law not an implied part of passing the law? When the representatives of the people collectively voted that they wanted Obamacare does that not imply that Obamacare should be a thing that they get? That's some pretty fancy footwork there. Doesn't hold up to my higher standard. Politics in a democracy should not be a game of who can cheat the system to get what they personally want best, regardless of the will of the people.

On August 01 2013 05:57 Myles wrote:
Jonny, I tend to agree with a lot of what your write here, but I feel this is totally off base. If you can't win using the system the answer is not to shut down the system to get what you want anyways. If that's the case, just shut the whole thing down because there's no point. I can't get my way, you can't get your way, and no one will compromise, so no one gets anything. Sounds great.

On August 01 2013 06:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Once you pass a new law it doesn't have to be law forever. Legislatures can change their mind.

The first chance the people had to voice their opinion was the 2010 election after Obamacare passed. Republicans won, and they've been trying to reverse the law since. So I'm not sure what "will of the people" you are referring to. There is no clear will of the people here.

On August 01 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:

So the law was passed by Congress and then constant attempts to revoke it have failed and from this you glean that the democratic credentials of the law are in some way unclear? Is this opposite world?

On August 01 2013 06:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Is it? Legislation to repeal Obamacare has passed the House on numerous occasions.

Again, Reps hold the House, but not the Senate or WH. It's a split government. There is no clear, decisive consensus.

On August 01 2013 06:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Is it? Legislation to repeal Obamacare has passed the House on numerous occasions.

Again, Reps hold the House, but not the Senate or WH. It's a split government. There is no clear, decisive consensus.

On August 01 2013 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Really? That sounds like a very decisive consensus to me: the Senate and WH will not approve your legislation.

On August 01 2013 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Really? That sounds like a very decisive consensus to me: the Senate and WH will not approve your legislation.

More than half a year after the former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's loss, Republicans remain in the midst of intra-party argument over whether, how much, and in what way the party needs to reshape itself for coming elections. Among the GOP rank-and-file, a new poll finds, there's broad agreement that the party needs a major overhaul in both rhetoric and platform -- but stark disagreement over what form those changes should take.

According to a poll released Wednesday by Pew Research, 67 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters agree that the party "needs to address major problems" before the next presidential election, and 59 percent say the GOP needs not only to make a stronger case for itself, but also to reconsider some of its positions.

But further questioning exposes deep rifts over which way those positions should shift. While 54 percent say GOP leadership should move in a more conservative direction, 40 percent say it should become more moderate. There's also little agreement on how many concessions the party should make: 35 percent say Republicans compromise too much with Democrats, 27 percent that they compromise too little, and 32 percent say the party compromises the right amount. (Democrats are equally split on how much their party should compromise, but largely favor a more moderate direction.)

Perception from outside the parties is significantly different. An earlier Pew poll found that 62 percent of all Americans said the GOP was out of touch, and 52 percent that the party was too extreme.

Among Republicans, the tea party movement plays a prominent role in the divide. The percentage of Republican voters who say they agree with the tea party movement has dropped more than 10 points since 2010, but its influence remains strongly felt. Although just 42 percent of Republican voters now say they agree with the tea party, 49 percent of those who say they always vote in party primaries are aligned with the movement.

Tea party Republicans, as a whole, are older, more educated, more affluent, and more likely to be male. They're also more conservative. Tea party voters agree with their party brethren that the party needs to make major changes, but they're far more likely to say that the GOP should mostly entrench on its current positions; 51 percent take that view, compared to 26 percent of non-tea party Republicans.

Republicans are equally divided on a number of individual issues. There's broad agreement that the party should move to the right on government spending, and that its position on gun policy is about right. But that consensus disappears on several major social issues. Fewer than half agree with the party's stances on gay marriage, immigration, abortion, and government spending, and voters are almost evenly split on which direction to move on social issues like gay marriage and abortion.

On August 01 2013 04:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Thought police

So move to China and embrace one party rule.

On August 01 2013 06:27 Gorsameth wrote:

So the best way to deal with this situation is the burn down the building?

WASHINGTON — A key Senate panel narrowly approved a bill reauthorizing NASA on Tuesday, setting up a showdown with the House over how much money the nation’s space program should get to carry out its missions and which ones it should be allowed to execute.

The three-year bill, which now heads to the full Senate, would give the space agency $18.1 billion in fiscal 2014, $18.4 billion in fiscal 2015 and, $18.8 billion in fiscal 2016. NASA received $17.7 billion in fiscal 2013, which ends Sept. 30.

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee passed the bill 13-12 along party lines, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

“While it’s not as much as we’d like NASA to have, it’s certainly a step in the right direction,” Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Orlando, said after the vote. Nelson chairs the Science and Space Subcommittee that helped shape and steer the legislation.

If the Democratic-led Senate passes the bill as expected, lawmakers likely will have to reconcile it with a House bill that promises NASA much less. Earlier this month, lawmakers on the GOP-led House Science, Space and Technology Committee settled on a funding figure closer to $16.8 billion for fiscal 2014 and fiscal 2015. A vote on the House floor is expected later this year.

On August 01 2013 09:51 Roe wrote:


Just announcing that they're doing good from their perspective isn't really saying anything. It's like saying: "well the robber thought it was good he took the money and he felt like he needed it. so he's just making a living from his perspective". I'm just saying, relativism doesn't get you anywhere. The point is, what they're trying to do is destructive to democracy.

And shutting down the government because they didn't like a law, yeah, that's democratic...Heck we might as well move to China if Republicans want this kind of totalitarian power.