| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
I thought by now we all knew that context is important. Here is the exchange, but with more context and more discussion. In my own opinion, I don't see how the Wendy Davis filibuster (I am aware Cruz did not do a "real" filibuster) is any different than this one. Both were more to raise awareness than they were to actually accomplish something. So it's interesting to see the responses around the interwebz. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On September 27 2013 11:47 sc2superfan101 wrote: No one has any REAL idea what it would do (being almost entirely unprecedented), though I think we can all agree that it would be pretty fucking bad for the short-term. Obviously the smart move to make if it did occur would be to immediately begin prioritizing payments and enacting pretty massive austerity cuts. Taxes would have to come up also (an unfortunate reality), but the majority of the savings would have to come from spending (even Geithner unwittingly agrees with that). Unemployment would jump (or skyrocket, depending on who you ask). Borrowing would become rather difficult, and it is very likely that there might be a run on the banks. One (or more) of our large spending programs (SS, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, etc.) would have to either be cut entirely or cut to the bone (and deeper). Naturally what would follow would be a pretty massive contraction in the global and domestic market as securities and investments suddenly look a lot riskier. The world would almost certainly enter a pretty deep financial crises. Especially in America, cash-strapped house-buyers and struggling US businesses would find their capital costs going up (maybe drastically). The deep cuts in the budget would necessarily move money away from infrastructural investments. A stock market crash is inarguable. We can't say for certain how big it would be, but it would definitely be pretty big. That alone might have Congress scrambling to pass any debt bill Obama wants, just to get the stocks moving again (much like the jump immediately following the passage of TARP). Another (serious?) downgrade in our credit rating is a given. It is also pretty unlikely that the dollar would remain the world's reserve currency, considering the fact that most in the global market are already leaning that way anyway. All this would be pretty fucking terrible. But then again, all of it would be solvable and would not last too long (depending on who you ask). Obamacare would be pretty fucking terrible, and would last, presumably, until the Health Care industry collapses and the Democrats have ammo to use that to fund a single payer system. Of course, this would only continue adding to the overall debt and deficit, thus making the inevitable crash that much more painful. Call me crazy, but I'd rather take a solid punch to the gut now and get it over with, instead of having twenty years of strangulation before the punch comes. No, economists are fairly well aware of the implications. However, I stillI don't think you do. No, the damn thing isn't a short term effect. It will permanently cripple the US economy. You think the budget deficit is bad now, when interest rates for the US are practically flat? Consider what happens when interest rates skyrocket, as we pay more on both the debt we already have, and new bond prices rise significantly. Businesses aren't investing because of uncertainty about Obamacare? Congratulations, they're even less likely to invest after a default, when interest rates are through the roof and the economy is in the shitter. And, I reiterate, this is not a damn short term thing we can shrug off. The US economy will be permanently damaged by it, standards of living across the board will drop, and the resultant increased debt payments will cripple attempts to curb the deficit. The fiscal and monetary effects of a default will be felt for decades. The fact that we have a political party willing to destroy the national economy over a damn political spat, despite the numerous rebuffs of the challenge. I mean, the fact you're arguing that Obamacare is somehow worse for the US then a fucking default boggles the mind at this point, or the fact that they feel it's necessary to effectively hold the national economy hostage for an ideological point. They're essentially gutting the nations' future for Millennials and beyond with higher interest rates and debt by doing so. Again, we're talking about hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars cost for the taxpayers, and for the economy. I don't give a crap about a government shut down, that's pennies on the dollar compared to a default. Again, I don't think I can convey just how utterly boneheaded and suicidal holding the debt ceiling hostage is, and just playing the brinksmanship game is going to cost tens of billions of dollars over the next decade (the 10 year estimated cost of the damn 2011 debacle, despite not defaulting, is estimated at 19 billion dollars due to the interest rate increases). If this was somewhat heated, I apologize. Normally I try to remain apolitical given my focus on public policy, but for the love of all that is holy, this whole farce is horse excrement, and the politicians trying to justify it just disgust me right now. If you oppose healthcare reform, fine. Find a less destructive way to do it (and I believe that has already been tried before and failed), but holding the nations' economy hostage is sheer insanity. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
But I do think something has to be done to cut spending. The administration just keeps spending knowing the implications of default. Not too much leverage for the Republicans on that issue, which is why they need to fight on the CR. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On September 27 2013 15:27 Introvert wrote: Pardon my ignorance, but the government hasn't defaulted in any of the previous shutdowns... the bills continue to be payed. All essential personnel are funded. There is still about 3 weeks before they run out of money. The only real showdown was in 2011. Previously, raising the debt ceiling didn't even merit discussion, it was just done. And delaying a raise in the debt ceiling is still going to cost billions of dollars. While there's still optimism about it, 1) even playing brinksmanship with this is dangerous (again, you're holding a national economy hostage), and 2) 2011 is not 2013, and there are quite a few analysts whom are significantly more pessimistic of a last minute deal being reached, given in 2011, both parties were essentially in agreement, while now, there's no real room for such agreement, and not only have the Democrats been backing themselves into a political corner and, but the GOP are pushing forward ludicrously unviable political demands. The ground for negotiation is simply not there. The Democrats aren't going to give ground, else they fear this will become a recurrent trend in US politics (and have been doing quite the job ensuring they can't give ground anyways), and at this point, the GOP's a confused mess, and I'd highly doubt Boenher is fully in control over his caucus in this matter. http://www.businessinsider.com/debt-ceiling-deadline-raise-default-chances-2013-9 Chris Krueger, a D.C.-based analyst for Guggenheim Partners LLC, wrote in a market commentary Wednesday that there is a 40% chance of "technical default scenarios" as a result of the looming fight over raising the debt ceiling. What's more — the 60% chance Krueger sees of no default is based on nothing more than "blind faith," he wrote. "Putting the theatrics and brinksmanship around the government shutdown aside, at least there is a relatively clear path forward," Krueger wrote of the shutdown fight. "The path forward on the debt ceiling remains a total mystery and our 60% probability that the U.S. will not enter into technical default scenarios is based on nothing more than blind faith." Personally, I think the whole concept of a debt ceiling is an ossified relic that should absolutely be removed after this series of unfortunate events, but don't mind me. On September 27 2013 15:27 Introvert wrote: whoops read that wrong. But I do think something has to be done to cut spending. The administration just keeps spending knowing the implications of default. Not too much leverage for the Republicans on that issue, which is why they need to fight on the CR. A default as a result of a failure to raise the debt ceiling is currently the only realistic default scenario. I do agree, there needs to be a massive overhaul of the US pension and healthcare systems given their share of the budget, the deficit needs to be curbed (by both targeting elements of discretionary spending including defense, AND raising taxes because goddamn, politicians are cowards whom won't advocate for it despite it being SORELY needed). We probably do need tort reform, tax reform, and a whole host of other issues. The deficit will need to shrink. But none of that is going to be solved in three damn weeks. And the deficit and current US debt remains highly sustainable now and over the next decade or so due to the fact we pay almost nothing on it by virtue of having extremely cheap loans by nature of being a reserve currency, so when the economy's generally recovered, we can talk about raising taxes, and sharply cutting on the deficit. Failing to raise the debt ceiling SHARPLY reduces the time we actually have to work on those issues, and using it as leverage is risking economic implosion if (or, given the failure to agree on sequestration, when) the political calculus goes awry. | ||
|
dabom88
United States3483 Posts
On September 27 2013 15:05 Introvert wrote: I thought by now we all knew that context is important. Here is the exchange, but with more context and more discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCj3XtKsZfQ In my own opinion, I don't see how the Wendy Davis filibuster (I am aware Cruz did not do a "real" filibuster) is any different than this one. Both were more to raise awareness than they were to actually accomplish something. So it's interesting to see the responses around the interwebz. I think Corker's issue is the fact that he's doing this while the debt ceiling is in play. Wendy Davis delaying her State Senate's business didn't risk delaying a meaningful solution to a problem that would be devastating for the country. Time he spent on his show could have been time better spent on discussing amendments to the House bill instead. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
When it comes to Obamacare, I understand why they are doing what they are doing, however. This may very well be the last chance to stop it. Even if it's an abject failure, such a massive entitlement will be difficult to remove. Even though it is almost certain it will end up going through, I don't blame those trying to save us from that monstrosity before it's too late. it's sad that with Obamacare's low popularity it seems it will still be impossible to stop. I'm all for trying though. What type of government has opposition that just surrenders? Anyway, this isn't really my area of expertise, but the CR seems like a fine thing to fight over. As to CR, what the Republicans should also be doing right now is pointing out how taxes have been increased and the spending cuts have been nowhere to be seen. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
On September 27 2013 15:54 dabom88 wrote: I think Corker's issue is the fact that he's doing this while the debt ceiling is in play. Wendy Davis delaying her State Senate's business didn't risk delaying a meaningful solution to a problem that would be devastating for the country. Time he spent on his show could have been time better spent on discussing amendments to the House bill instead. no, that was not Corker's issue, if you would watch the clip you would see that. I believe Reid is only allowing one amendment: to fund Obamacare. Thus, they ARE debating the ONLY amendment that will occur. This debt ceiling thing cannot be allowed to act as a catch all for the Democrats, I'm sure the next CR and debt limit will expire at roughly the same time again. They just want everyone afraid: "Default default default!" while forcing the Republicans to spend more. Obamacare is started a full 2 weeks before the debt ceiling is reached. Plenty of time. | ||
|
Lord Tolkien
United States12083 Posts
On September 27 2013 16:00 Introvert wrote: If the debt ceiling was removed, then we wouldn't have these discussions... I am not in favoring of governments being able to borrow into oblivion. Limits are good things... But there aren't many other ways for people to realize just how in the hole we are. I just think with so much time it should be negotiated on exactly how much it should go up.... it has to stop at some point, we don't have an infinite supply of money. If you don't want to borrow into oblivion, look to Congress to, you know, put together a sensible budget next time. Putting a limit on the amount of money the Treasury to raise to fund those expenses is ludicrous. When it comes to Obamacare, I understand why they are doing what they are doing, however. This may very well be the last chance to stop it. Even if it's an abject failure, such a massive entitlement will be difficult to remove. Even though it is almost certain it will end up going through, I don't blame those trying to save us from that monstrosity before it's too late. it's sad that with Obamacare's low popularity it seems it will still be impossible to stop. I'm all for trying though. What type of government has opposition that just surrenders? Anyway, this isn't really my area of expertise, but the CR seems like a fine thing to fight over. As to CR, what the Republicans should also be doing right now is pointing out how taxes have been increased and the spending cuts have been nowhere to be seen. Stopping Obamacare is a goal of debatable merit, but it doesn't matter to me. If they want to stop it, fine. However, I draw the line where the opposition threatens to plunge the country into a recession for it. My only concern is the debt ceiling. A government shutdown doesn't ping on my radar. The former is a calamity, the latter is far more manageable. If you want to quibble over the budget, please do, a shutdown barely dints the economy. Take as much time as you need. But threatening default by holding out on the debt ceiling? That's what I'm getting up in arms about. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
QUOTE]On September 27 2013 16:14 Lord Tolkien wrote: On September 27 2013 16:00 Introvert wrote: If the debt ceiling was removed, then we wouldn't have these discussions... I am not in favoring of governments being able to borrow into oblivion. Limits are good things... But there aren't many other ways for people to realize just how in the hole we are. I just think with so much time it should be negotiated on exactly how much it should go up.... it has to stop at some point, we don't have an infinite supply of money. If you don't want to borrow into oblivion, look to Congress to, you know, put together a sensible budget next time. Putting a limit on the amount of money the Treasury to raise to fund those expenses is ludicrous. When it comes to Obamacare, I understand why they are doing what they are doing, however. This may very well be the last chance to stop it. Even if it's an abject failure, such a massive entitlement will be difficult to remove. Even though it is almost certain it will end up going through, I don't blame those trying to save us from that monstrosity before it's too late. it's sad that with Obamacare's low popularity it seems it will still be impossible to stop. I'm all for trying though. What type of government has opposition that just surrenders? Anyway, this isn't really my area of expertise, but the CR seems like a fine thing to fight over. As to CR, what the Republicans should also be doing right now is pointing out how taxes have been increased and the spending cuts have been nowhere to be seen. Stopping Obamacare is a goal of debatable merit, but it doesn't matter to me. If they want to stop it, fine. However, I draw the line where the opposition threatens to plunge the country into a recession for it. My only concern is the debt ceiling. A government shutdown doesn't ping on my radar. The former is a calamity, the latter is far more manageable. If you want to quibble over the budget, please do, a shutdown barely dints the economy. Take as much time as you need. But threatening default by holding out on the debt ceiling? That's what I'm getting up in arms about. To me stopping OC would be quite good, not only for healthcare but also for fundamental liberties (how the individual mandate made it through the Supreme Court is something I know, but cannot understand.) It's just a very obnoxious position. If I understand this correctly, it just seems really bad that we have to borrow more so that we can pay for what we have already borrowed. This a really simple, yet true statement, is it not? At this point the president has made zero concessions on borrowing or spending, except to that stupid sequester that was a small dent in increases. At some point you have to push him to the edge...it's all very difficult. Which is why I don't think all this stuff going on about the CR is bad, I think it needs to be done. Also, it's not like the debt ceiling has never been used this way, it has happened many times, but with limited success. So I'm all for trying... it managed to work out (no default) those other times. | ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
On September 27 2013 16:21 Introvert wrote: Also, it's not like the debt ceiling has never been used this way, it has happened many times, but with limited success. So I'm all for trying... it managed to work out (no default) those other times. Just because you manage to grab hold of the steering wheel to prevent the crazy driver from taking the car off the cliff a few times doesn't mean it's a good idea for him to keep on doing it. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
This seems to pop up every 6-12 months lol, why cant they find a permanent solution? We never have this discussion in europe, not sure why though. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
To me stopping OC would be quite good, not only for healthcare but also for fundamental liberties (how the individual mandate made it through the Supreme Court is something I know, but cannot understand.) It's just a very obnoxious position. If I understand this correctly, it just seems really bad that we have to borrow more so that we can pay for what we have already borrowed. This a really simple, yet true statement, is it not? At this point the president has made zero concessions on borrowing or spending, except to that stupid sequester that was a small dent in increases. At some point you have to push him to the edge...it's all very difficult. Which is why I don't think all this stuff going on about the CR is bad, I think it needs to be done. Also, it's not like the debt ceiling has never been used this way, it has happened many times, but with limited success. So I'm all for trying... it managed to work out (no default) those other times. We wouldn't want anything as old as the constitution getting in the way of our new great state solutions, would we? If you can't find a constitutional justification, invent one, say the activist judges. If you like it, call it not a tax in one breath and a tax in another. Find an enumeration of a penumbra. If they're selling it as an insurance put in your own account, call it a tax for general purposes when it gets to the supreme court. Examples like these are some of the reasons we are living in a post-constitutional society. The powers of government extend so far that there aren't any left reserved to the states or the people. | ||
|
NPF
Canada1635 Posts
Some links are in the video description. He raises a good point at the end of USA not having a centralize/governement plan for all it's citizens substantially lowers negotiation power with medical manufacturers. This can be seen by the hospital Master Price list (Charge Master) which is a lot cheaper for insured people over uninsured for the same procedure due to negotiation power. I have a huffington post article (yes liberal website from what I can see) Source Here another one Source | ||
KwarK
United States41982 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On September 25 2013 09:47 Danglars wrote: The fight he's waging is one for the publicity of opposition. If enough constituents sign on to the House passing piecemeal funding, he's won. Very little time remains to defund the bill. This is essentially the last action a Senator can take before it's back to being up to the House to go with Plan A (Plan B wasn't ever viable, that Reid would require the 60 votes in a different Senate rule he has the opportunity to support). There is no "little time" to defund the bill, because it's not happening. Cruz has no chance of winning anything with regards to the ACA, and he knows it. The only thing he's interested in is getting the spotlight and appearing as the one guy conservatives who do not want the bill should rally behind and support in an election. On September 25 2013 11:08 sc2superfan101 wrote: I make the statement that saying Ted Cruz is fighting his own bill is disengenious because we all know that he's no longer fighting "his own bill" but fighting Harry Reid's bill (Reid will change the bill, thus making it no longer a Republican bill). You're response to this is, basically, to repeat "lol, he's fighting his own bill." ... You don't think that it's very, very telling that you are willing to be this dishonest about what's going on here? ...except that wasn't my response at all, so if you're going to talk about being dishonest perhaps you should pay more attention to what you're replying to, and/or avoid distorting it. What I said was that it is Ted Cruz who is actually being disingenuous because he knows very well that there is absolutely no chance of the ACA getting defunded and is only interested in looking good to conservative voters. He spent all summer asking for a bill defunding the ACA from the House because he wanted to appear as the flag bearer of the anti-ACA fight, while in reality he did not want that bill to pass the House precisely because he knew it would lead nowhere and he wanted to appear alone in his fight to rally conservative voters behind him. That's why when the bill did pass the House, he desperately tried to find a way to avoid having to recognize that it would accomplish nothing (contrary to what he had previously argued) and keep the spotlight on himself. On September 25 2013 11:08 sc2superfan101 wrote: Uh... what world are you living in? Two days ago he said: "I cannot defund Obamacare myself." He openly admitted the hopelessness of his fight. And when he did, both establishment Republicans and Democrats blasted him for it. So now you're going to turn around and accuse him of hiding the fact that his fight is hopeless? You can't have it both ways here. I'm not the one trying to have it both ways. Ted Cruz is. He only admitted the hopelessness of the initial legislative strategy he had been advocating after it was actually followed, precisely because he thought that it would not be followed. Had that strategy not been followed, you would have heard him blame the House and declare that if they had passed the bill this could have led them to being able to defund Obamacare. Unfortunately for him, the House did grant him his rhetorical wish, which led him to try to quietly disown his initial (rhetorical) strategy by saying it was through the American people that the ACA would be defunded. Since this obvious backtracking got called out, he realize he had to own up to his previous rhetoric or get completely exposed as the fraud he is, and therefore filibustered the very bill he had been asking for precisely because the House passing the bill did not in any way mean it would not be changed in the Senate - which is the very reason why him asking for it to be passed in the first place was ridiculous political rhetoric. On September 25 2013 11:08 sc2superfan101 wrote: It's always been the House's job. Ted Cruz, sadly, does not run the Senate. Republicans, sadly, do not run the Senate. The Republicans do run the House. If anything is to be done, it has to be done in the House. It's a political reality. The political reality is precisely that the bill Ted Cruz had asked for and argued was the way to go to defund Obamacare had no chance of accomplishing anything. Are you somehow oblivious to this? That's why Cruz is putting the onus back on the House: he knows that whatever the House proposes to defund Obamacare cannot possibly pass the Senate and therefore cannot accomplish anything, but the minute they don't pass what he's asking for he can point fingers and blame them and appear as the lone conservative hero in the anti-ACA fight. That you're failing to realize this tells a lot about how much you understand politics. On September 25 2013 11:08 sc2superfan101 wrote: Stop the lying. It's making your position look terrible. I'm not lying - perhaps you should be paying more attention to both what I'm saying and what is going on in front of your eyes. On September 25 2013 11:13 xDaunt wrote: I figured out long ago that it isn't really worth engaging posters when all they are doing is echoing inane talking points from the DNC. Every post from every liberal on this Cruz topic pretty much falls squarely into this category. That's rich coming from the guy who was so far deep in the Republicans' alternate reality bubble that he thought Romney would comfortably win the election, and who's repeating debunked Republicans talking points on the ACA's costs. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 27 2013 20:28 KwarK wrote: The doom stories about what will happen if America had public healthcare (mass unemployment, loss of services etc) always strike me as odd because this isn't something new and radical being proposed. As much as Americans like to think they're pushing back the frontiers of social progress on this one they're considering something every other first world nation has already implemented. With this in mind the speculation about all the terrible things that'd happen just seems odd, you don't really need to speculate, you can just look. Public healthcare provides better services for less money and can operate parallel to a private insurance based option for those that can afford it. No, really. It's been done. My biggest worry over a single payer system is that Congress finds a way to screw it up. Not implausible. | ||
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
On September 26 2013 12:20 sc2superfan101 wrote: Ron Paul libertarians are not a significant wing of the party, or the conservative movement. The beat-down Ron Paul took in the primary proves that Tea-Party Republicans and Establishment Republicans are still the top-dogs in the race, with the Establishment winning out in the last election (Romney). However, Romney's move to the right after (and immediately before) receiving the nomination was definitely a sign that the Tea Party group is growing in strength and influence. Ted Cruz has established himself as the leader of the political Tea Party right now, so if he can keep that momentum, he will definitely be a force in 2016 if he runs. I predict a three-way battle between him, Paul, and Christie, with the establishment backing Christie. From the guy who blames all our problems on Obama, I'll pass on your appraisal of anything related to prediction or political wisdom. 2012 Rep Primary history lesson: How to steal delegates and break election laws and win. Charlie Cheater Ben Ginsburg Broken bones. I watched about 30 state conventions livestream, your talking out your ass to me. The beat-down you refer to...well I have a different term to describe. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On September 27 2013 15:23 Lord Tolkien wrote: No, economists are fairly well aware of the implications. However, I stillI don't think you do. No, the damn thing isn't a short term effect. It will permanently cripple the US economy. Almost all literature on the subject agrees that it is impossible to know to what extent these things will occur. There is very little precedent for it. Nothing is permanent. In a debate that is defined by the hyperbole being tossed around by either side, let at least us, who do not have elections to win, dispense with it. How you and I define short-term is obviously very different. The fact that we have a political party willing to destroy the national economy over a damn political spat, despite the numerous rebuffs of the challenge. I mean, the fact you're arguing that Obamacare is somehow worse for the US then a fucking default boggles the mind at this point, or the fact that they feel it's necessary to effectively hold the national economy hostage for an ideological point. They're essentially gutting the nations' future for Millennials and beyond with higher interest rates and debt by doing so. The Democrats are equally as guilty, and will be equally as guilty in the event of a default. They are the ones refusing to make any real cuts in spending, they are the ones who passed an extremely unpopular health-care bill that THEY ADMIT was designed to fail horribly, and they are also the ones who could very easily come to the table and negotiate with Republicans on some key issues to get spending under control. Most Republicans are well aware of the fact that a default is the second worst solution to the problem, and want to avoid it, and will do quite a bit of bending in order to avoid it. But continuing with what we're doing is the absolute worst solution to the problem, and will lead to an eventual collapse. If Democrats won't budge until the collapse happens, then we might as well have it happen now, when private industry is still flexible enough to fill the void. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On September 27 2013 20:56 kwizach wrote:That's why when the bill did pass the House, he desperately tried to find a way to avoid having to recognize that it would accomplish nothing (contrary to what he had previously argued) and keep the spotlight on himself. So you are saying that he's fighting his own bill... And then using that (dishonest) point as evidence that he in fact never wanted to defund Obamacare at all. On September 25 2013 11:08 sc2superfan101 wrote: I'm not the one trying to have it both ways. Ted Cruz is. He only admitted the hopelessness of the initial legislative strategy he had been advocating after it was actually followed, precisely because he thought that it would not be followed. You mean: After the Senate Republicans openly came out saying they would not use a filibuster? On September 25 2013 11:08 sc2superfan101 wrote: That's why Cruz is putting the onus back on the House: he knows that whatever the House proposes to defund Obamacare cannot possibly pass the Senate and therefore cannot accomplish anything, but the minute they don't pass what he's asking for he can point fingers and blame them and appear as the lone conservative hero in the anti-ACA fight. That you're failing to realize this tells a lot about how much you understand politics. So he tried desperately to push them into passing a bill he didn't want passed and then is going to try desperately to push them into filibustering a bill he doesn't want them to filibuster, and then will try desperately to get them to pass another bill he doesn't want them to pass... No, I understand perfectly. Ted Cruz can't be honest in his convictions because that makes you look bad. So he has to be a liar. And you'll make any mental back-flip you can make to come up with a convoluted explanation that makes him a liar. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On September 27 2013 21:42 BioNova wrote: 2012 Rep Primary history lesson: How to steal delegates and break election laws and win. Charlie Cheater Ben Ginsburg Broken bones. I watched about 30 state conventions livestream, your talking out your ass to me. The beat-down you refer to...well I have a different term to describe. You realize that the highest percentage Ron Paul got, in any state, was 23%? He couldn't win a single state. Not one. But apparently, winning the State (and thus the delegates) is "delegate stealing" but Ron Paul's strategy of openly trying to secure delegates despite not securing the popular vote anywhere isn't. That's a wonderful world you live in. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  42447BeSt 4676Jaedong  1582Horang2 925GuemChi 777Mind  494Harstem 318JYJ298 Zeus 281Pusan 246[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games singsing2203 ceh91440 Happy888 XBOCT536 JimRising  500hungrybox314 SortOf214 Pyrionflax185 Fuzer  128Dewaltoss30 JuggernautJason13 ZerO(Twitch)12 |
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
Code For Giants Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
SC Evo Complete
Classic vs uThermal
SOOP StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
