|
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 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it.
The House can override Boehner if it has the votes.
|
On October 09 2013 03:59 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 03:55 Sermokala wrote:On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. There isn't enough votes to pass a clean CR if it means that the party is against it. IE the ones that are willing to vote for a clearn CR are doing so because they want to distance themselves from the libertarians that are causeing this shutdown but won't actually break party unity to side with the democrats. Boehner not calling for said votes keeps them in that backup QB situation where they can talk all they want and not have to really worry about stepping up and ruining peoples ideas of you. ~ 20 Republican members of the House have publicly stated that they would vote for a clean CR if they are given the opportunity to do so. That is more than enough to pass the CR, assuming no Democrats break ranks. It is possible that these Republicans would go back on their word by voting against a clean CR, but I can't see that going over well with their constituents who are already pretty pissed off. Edit: Also please don't call the Tea Party "Libertarians" - they are very socially conservative, which inconsistent with the Libertarian platform.
But thats not the point. Western politics is about lieing. Without their need to ever have to vote against the party they can say whatevery they want to to paint themselves away from the evil libertarians (the tea party doesn't have anything to do about social issues so idk why you think libertarians can get a pass from their problems based on that).
The ones that "are willing to vote the other way" are establishment republicans and won't actually vote against the party. its the very thing thats hipster to complain about politics about is what ensures what they're saying is just talk. Everyone knows there isn't going to be a clean CR going to the floor until bohener says so. the only way that they're is a vote is somehow if the part of the republicans in actually competitive elections are able to "force" the party and thus government itself to stop the shutdown.
I mean if we're just going to be like sheep and get herded around by what the news tells us then whats the point of having a thread.
On October 09 2013 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. The House can override Boehner if it has the votes.
Unfortunately the legislative rule on this is that a majority of the majority party needs to be for a bill for it to come to the floor. Its not always exercised but it can be in the SOTH wants to.
|
Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. The House can override Boehner if it has the votes. Unfortunately the legislative rule on this is that a majority of the majority party needs to be for a bill for it to come to the floor. Its not always exercised but it can be in the SOTH wants to.
Going off of Wikipedia the House can vote to bring the bill to a vote.
A discharge petition signed by 218 members (or more) from any party is the only way to force consideration of a bill that does not have the support of the Speaker.
The caveat being that politics is politics, and few will want to break party ranks to such a degree. Though it raises the question of how certain those ~20 Rep votes really are.
|
On October 09 2013 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. The House can override Boehner if it has the votes.
Source?
Anyway, even if that's true it doesn't change the fact that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR.
|
United States41117 Posts
|
On October 09 2013 04:19 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. The House can override Boehner if it has the votes. Source? Anyway, even if that's true it doesn't change the fact that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR.
Jonny is speaking theoretically again. Overriding the Speaker in bringing a call to vote is so unusual it is practically impossible.
|
On October 09 2013 04:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 04:19 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. The House can override Boehner if it has the votes. Source? Anyway, even if that's true it doesn't change the fact that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR. Jonny is speaking theoretically again. Overriding the Speaker in bringing a call to vote is so unusual it is practically impossible.
Yeah I pointed out that it would be politically difficult. As of right now, having enough votes to pass a clean CR is just theoretical too. Talk is cheap. Just because a politician said they'll do something doesn't mean they actually will.
|
On October 09 2013 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 04:33 farvacola wrote:On October 09 2013 04:19 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. The House can override Boehner if it has the votes. Source? Anyway, even if that's true it doesn't change the fact that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR. Jonny is speaking theoretically again. Overriding the Speaker in bringing a call to vote is so unusual it is practically impossible. Yeah I pointed out that it would be politically difficult. As of right now, having enough votes to pass a clean CR is just theoretical too. Talk is cheap. Just because a politician said they'll do something doesn't mean they actually will.
Yes they said it and yes they might be lying but why does the American system have to be so damn difficult to get a bill up for voting in the first place? Why is the speaker the only person who can realistically bring a bill to vote?
Why cant the democrats propose the bill and call those Republicans to make there vote?
Why is your system designed to not follow a majority but require arbitrary restriction? And don't say it is to prevent abuse and time wasting because god knows there are to many ways to do that in the US congress already.
|
Actually, I would maintain that one of our system's greatest strengths is its propensity for "wasting time". Historically, governments that don't waste time do bad things to the people they govern. On the other hand, this is also one of our greatest weaknesses.
|
On October 09 2013 04:19 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. The House can override Boehner if it has the votes. Source? Anyway, even if that's true it doesn't change the fact that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR.
There is no real evidence to support your opinion that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR. Don't be a dick asking someone else for a source on something and then make such a statement that clearly doesn't have a source.
|
They only need like 25 republicans to pass a clean CR. I highly doubt the republicans are so universally extreme right that 25 of them won't consider the well being of the entire country to be more important than petty partisan bickering.
Edit: apparently they only need 17. Even more reasonable to believe that a clean CR would pass. The reason Boehner hasn't brought it up odds because he knows it would pass, and he would lose. Obvious.
|
On October 09 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:33 farvacola wrote:On October 09 2013 04:19 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. The House can override Boehner if it has the votes. Source? Anyway, even if that's true it doesn't change the fact that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR. Jonny is speaking theoretically again. Overriding the Speaker in bringing a call to vote is so unusual it is practically impossible. Yeah I pointed out that it would be politically difficult. As of right now, having enough votes to pass a clean CR is just theoretical too. Talk is cheap. Just because a politician said they'll do something doesn't mean they actually will. Yes they said it and yes they might be lying but why does the American system have to be so damn difficult to get a bill up for voting in the first place? Why is the speaker the only person who can realistically bring a bill to vote? Why cant the democrats propose the bill and call those Republicans to make there vote? Why is your system designed to not follow a majority but require arbitrary restriction? And don't say it is to prevent abuse and time wasting because god knows there are to many ways to do that in the US congress already.
Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now.
|
On October 09 2013 05:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 04:19 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:17 Velr wrote:
Ahm..... This law passed ALL your checks and balances, it is written down, it is in effect, it is the will of the people.
In a last ditch effort the Reps now hold the whole goverment hostage by not allowing a vote about the budget to happen unless ACA gets watered down (or delayed) even more...
How is this in any way democratic? Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes. . So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. The House can override Boehner if it has the votes. Source? Anyway, even if that's true it doesn't change the fact that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR. There is no real evidence to support your opinion that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR. Don't be a dick asking someone else for a source on something and then make such a statement that clearly doesn't have a source.
Source
I thought this was common knowledge by this point. I suppose it's possible that some of these guys won't follow through with their public statements, but I wouldn't call it "no real evidence."
Edit: Here's an updated count. It appears that since the Forbes article was published 4 Republicans have retracted their statements, but others have said they would support a clean CR. As of today, the number of Republicans who have publicly stated their support for a clean CR stands at 23.
Edit 2: Assuming no Democrats break ranks, 17 Republicans would have to vote for the CR in order for it to pass.
|
On October 09 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:33 farvacola wrote:On October 09 2013 04:19 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:On October 09 2013 03:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Yes, the ACA is the law of the land. Absolutely. Though, last I checked, laws can be changed if you have the votes.
. So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage? Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. The House can override Boehner if it has the votes. Source? Anyway, even if that's true it doesn't change the fact that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR. Jonny is speaking theoretically again. Overriding the Speaker in bringing a call to vote is so unusual it is practically impossible. Yeah I pointed out that it would be politically difficult. As of right now, having enough votes to pass a clean CR is just theoretical too. Talk is cheap. Just because a politician said they'll do something doesn't mean they actually will. Yes they said it and yes they might be lying but why does the American system have to be so damn difficult to get a bill up for voting in the first place? Why is the speaker the only person who can realistically bring a bill to vote? Why cant the democrats propose the bill and call those Republicans to make there vote? Why is your system designed to not follow a majority but require arbitrary restriction? And don't say it is to prevent abuse and time wasting because god knows there are to many ways to do that in the US congress already. Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now.
Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check.
This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus.
|
On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:33 farvacola wrote:On October 09 2013 04:19 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:48 Velr wrote:
[quote]
So, if they have the votes to change/repeal it, why don't they? Why do they hold your whole country hostage?
Oh, because they can't change/repeal it because it's fucking to late for that and they allready lost when they tryed that.. But they can try again later... The normal democratic way. Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. The House can override Boehner if it has the votes. Source? Anyway, even if that's true it doesn't change the fact that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR. Jonny is speaking theoretically again. Overriding the Speaker in bringing a call to vote is so unusual it is practically impossible. Yeah I pointed out that it would be politically difficult. As of right now, having enough votes to pass a clean CR is just theoretical too. Talk is cheap. Just because a politician said they'll do something doesn't mean they actually will. Yes they said it and yes they might be lying but why does the American system have to be so damn difficult to get a bill up for voting in the first place? Why is the speaker the only person who can realistically bring a bill to vote? Why cant the democrats propose the bill and call those Republicans to make there vote? Why is your system designed to not follow a majority but require arbitrary restriction? And don't say it is to prevent abuse and time wasting because god knows there are to many ways to do that in the US congress already. Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now. Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check. This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus.
In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts.
|
On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:33 farvacola wrote:On October 09 2013 04:19 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Reps don't have the votes to repeal it and Dems don't have the votes to fund it. It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. The House can override Boehner if it has the votes. Source? Anyway, even if that's true it doesn't change the fact that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR. Jonny is speaking theoretically again. Overriding the Speaker in bringing a call to vote is so unusual it is practically impossible. Yeah I pointed out that it would be politically difficult. As of right now, having enough votes to pass a clean CR is just theoretical too. Talk is cheap. Just because a politician said they'll do something doesn't mean they actually will. Yes they said it and yes they might be lying but why does the American system have to be so damn difficult to get a bill up for voting in the first place? Why is the speaker the only person who can realistically bring a bill to vote? Why cant the democrats propose the bill and call those Republicans to make there vote? Why is your system designed to not follow a majority but require arbitrary restriction? And don't say it is to prevent abuse and time wasting because god knows there are to many ways to do that in the US congress already. Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now. Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check. This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts.
since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt.
|
United States41117 Posts
Now you see why John Boehner doesn't do that many "press" conferences. He's very bad at it, and couldn't get out of there fast enough.
|
On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:33 farvacola wrote:On October 09 2013 04:19 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 03:52 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
It's already funded for the next two years. Also there are enough votes to pass a clean CR, but Boehner will not allow the House to vote on it. The House can override Boehner if it has the votes. Source? Anyway, even if that's true it doesn't change the fact that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR. Jonny is speaking theoretically again. Overriding the Speaker in bringing a call to vote is so unusual it is practically impossible. Yeah I pointed out that it would be politically difficult. As of right now, having enough votes to pass a clean CR is just theoretical too. Talk is cheap. Just because a politician said they'll do something doesn't mean they actually will. Yes they said it and yes they might be lying but why does the American system have to be so damn difficult to get a bill up for voting in the first place? Why is the speaker the only person who can realistically bring a bill to vote? Why cant the democrats propose the bill and call those Republicans to make there vote? Why is your system designed to not follow a majority but require arbitrary restriction? And don't say it is to prevent abuse and time wasting because god knows there are to many ways to do that in the US congress already. Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now. Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check. This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt.
A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it.
|
On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:33 farvacola wrote:On October 09 2013 04:19 Mercy13 wrote:On October 09 2013 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The House can override Boehner if it has the votes. Source? Anyway, even if that's true it doesn't change the fact that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR. Jonny is speaking theoretically again. Overriding the Speaker in bringing a call to vote is so unusual it is practically impossible. Yeah I pointed out that it would be politically difficult. As of right now, having enough votes to pass a clean CR is just theoretical too. Talk is cheap. Just because a politician said they'll do something doesn't mean they actually will. Yes they said it and yes they might be lying but why does the American system have to be so damn difficult to get a bill up for voting in the first place? Why is the speaker the only person who can realistically bring a bill to vote? Why cant the democrats propose the bill and call those Republicans to make there vote? Why is your system designed to not follow a majority but require arbitrary restriction? And don't say it is to prevent abuse and time wasting because god knows there are to many ways to do that in the US congress already. Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now. Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check. This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it.
In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal.
|
On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:33 farvacola wrote:On October 09 2013 04:19 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
Source?
Anyway, even if that's true it doesn't change the fact that there are enough votes to pass a clean CR.
Jonny is speaking theoretically again. Overriding the Speaker in bringing a call to vote is so unusual it is practically impossible. Yeah I pointed out that it would be politically difficult. As of right now, having enough votes to pass a clean CR is just theoretical too. Talk is cheap. Just because a politician said they'll do something doesn't mean they actually will. Yes they said it and yes they might be lying but why does the American system have to be so damn difficult to get a bill up for voting in the first place? Why is the speaker the only person who can realistically bring a bill to vote? Why cant the democrats propose the bill and call those Republicans to make there vote? Why is your system designed to not follow a majority but require arbitrary restriction? And don't say it is to prevent abuse and time wasting because god knows there are to many ways to do that in the US congress already. Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now. Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check. This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal.
Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
