| 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. | ||
|
GTPGlitch
5061 Posts
On October 01 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote: I take it that you have never conducted a serious negotiation before. Your opening demand is never your bottom line or even where you expect the negotiation to end up. Fairly certain your opening demand shouldn't be "follow my orders or I set off a bomb that kills both of us!" either | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 01 2013 07:06 Gorsameth wrote: Oh come on. If you come to a negotiation demanding the moon i just shut the door in your face. Ofc you dont open with your bottom line but the kitchen sink sure shouldnt be included. There is such a thing as unrealistic beyond consideration. Yes, shutting the door in my face is one option. The smart alternative is to counter the proposal with a list of demands in addition to the mere funding of the government. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On October 01 2013 09:31 xDaunt wrote: Yes, shutting the door in my face is one option. The smart alternative is to counter the proposal with a list of demands in addition to the mere funding of the government. We don't (officially) negotiate with terrorists. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On October 01 2013 07:04 xDaunt wrote: I take it that you have never conducted a serious negotiation before. Your opening demand is never your bottom line or even where you expect the negotiation to end up. To be fair, this actually IS pretty much how Obama operates, and is part of why he has been somewhat feckless. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 01 2013 09:31 xDaunt wrote: Yes, shutting the door in my face is one option. The smart alternative is to counter the proposal with a list of demands in addition to the mere funding of the government. Actually, the smart thing to do is to refuse to negotiate. All the Democrats have to do is point out the absolutely ridiculous demands Republicans made in their last deal in order to gain a 5-10% advantage in polling. There's absolutely no reason to sink to the level of their opponents when a reasonable approach yields the same results. If it weren't the smart thing to do, Boehner would not have spent the last three weeks trying to convince his fellow congressmen to delay the fight until the fiscal cliff, not the debt ceiling. You'd think that the last election would have taught Republicans to keep their base grounded before moderates could hear them, but no... | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Via Ted Cruz aide: Hearing Boehner will offer clean #CR vote after Reid refuses, once again, 2 compromise. #shutdown #MakeDCListen If the House passes this CR the Senate will vote to table it before midnight and send it right back, per sr Dem aide. - Sahil Kapur | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
Deal will be done by then. Jack Lew will have played all the games he can play with the Civil Service retirement fund... aka "Extraordinary Measures". | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
| ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On October 01 2013 11:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Last I heard the GOP is demanding a 1 year delay in the individual mandate. That doesn't sound too unreasonable. The individual mandate is fairly toothless in the first year anyways. Have Dems made any counter offers? This isn't something to be negotiated about. Let me break down the components here. Republicans are offering: (CR) (+) (!ACA) The problem isn't (!ACA). (!ACA) can be negotiated. The problem is (+). By tying Obamacare implementation negotiations to the CR, the Republicans have tied Obamacare to the funding of the government. If Obama gives in here, then there is strong precedent for tying of funding of the government to ideological issues. From then on, the country will have to govern via a continuous system of crisis. Obama must stop this before it takes a stronger hold on our system of government. You can only govern so long from crisis to crisis until one of these crises actually manifests and wrecks our constitutional order. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 01 2013 12:05 CannonsNCarriers wrote: This isn't something to be negotiated about. Let me break down the components here. Republicans are offering: (CR) (+) (!ACA) The problem isn't (!ACA). (!ACA) can be negotiated. The problem is (+). By tying Obamacare implementation negotiations to the CR, the Republicans have tied Obamacare to the funding of the government. If Obama gives in here, then there is strong precedent for tying of funding of the government to ideological issues. From then on, the country will have to govern via a continuous system of crisis. Obama must stop this before it takes a stronger hold on our system of government. You can only govern so long from crisis to crisis until one of these crises actually manifests and wrecks our constitutional order. Congress is supposed to decide what gets funded and what doesn't. Working as intended. | ||
Falling
Canada11572 Posts
On October 01 2013 12:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Congress is supposed to decide what gets funded and what doesn't. Working as intended. Don't you usually decide that in the budget? The budget that was already passed? | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On October 01 2013 12:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Congress is supposed to decide what gets funded and what doesn't. Working as intended. Do you not understand the context of this bill? The government is shutting down at midnight. This isn't regular order. Furthermore, when you say "congress", are you including the Senate? And the signing by the president? That requires some agreement and negotiation, and tying those negotiations to a government shut down as a discussed, is wrong. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On October 01 2013 12:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Congress is supposed to decide what gets funded and what doesn't. Working as intended. Yes and the ACA was passed through said Congress. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 01 2013 12:10 Falling wrote: Don't you usually decide that in the budget? The budget that was already passed? Apparently not, since they didn't budget for their borrowing needs. Regardless, budgets can be changed at will. Same as any law. Edit 3: I don't think the new budget has been passed anyways. Isn't that what we're dealing with here? Edit: On October 01 2013 12:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Yes and the ACA was passed through said Congress. So? The GOP wants to change the law. Changing laws is pretty normal. The ACA itself changed a bunch. Edit 2: So when Obama delayed other ACA provisions he was wrong or something? | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events. This, plainly stated, is your language… In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" To be sure, what the robber demanded of me - my money - was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle…. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong... | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On October 01 2013 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Apparently not, since they didn't budget for their borrowing needs. Regardless, budgets can be changed at will. Same as any law. Edit 3: I don't think the new budget has been passed anyways. Isn't that what we're dealing with here? You do know how the debt ceiling works, right? Congress has already spent the money being argued about. The debt ceiling is whether or not Congress will pay its creditors for the money it spent. On October 01 2013 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote: So? The GOP wants to change the law. Changing laws is pretty normal. The ACA itself changed a bunch. Wanting to change the law is normal. Crashing the US Economy... On October 01 2013 12:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Congress is supposed to decide what gets funded and what doesn't. Working as intended. It would also be legal for Congress to strip pay and cancel pensions for every service member overseas. Somehow, I doubt you'd say that's called "working as intended". | ||
| ||
|
|
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
