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.
Forget the Vitter amendment. Rand Paul wants to make sure that Congress can’t ever again write laws with provisions specific to lawmakers.
The Kentucky freshman Republican has introduced a constitutional amendment that would preclude senators and congressmen from passing laws that don’t apply equally to U.S. citizens and Congress, the executive branch and the Supreme Court. The amendment is aimed squarely at Obamacare provisions specific to members of Congress and their staffs that became a central point of contention during the government shutdown.
Under Obamacare, Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers are required to enter the law’s health exchanges and a summertime ruling from the Office of Personnel Management ensured they will continue to receive federal employer contributions to help pay for insurance on the exchanges. A number of lawmakers, specifically Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), have been pushing for the end to those contributions, arguing they amount to a Washington exemption from Obamacare. Vitter has drafted legislative language that would eliminate these subsidies and tried to attach the measure to an energy efficiency bill and pushed for it to be included in the government funding bill last week.
Paul seeks to go a step further and amend the Constitution so that “Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress,” the executive branch including the president and vice president as well as the Supreme Court.
Paul told the Daily Caller in September that the amendment would take specific aim at Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, whose swing vote upheld the constitutionality of much of the Affordable Care Act.
“If he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts,” Paul told the publication.
Amending the Constitution is no easy task, requiring super majorities in both chambers of Congress before going to the states for ratification. And Paul in particular will face the immense burden of trying to convince lawmakers that they should no longer have the authority to make laws governing Congress.
because America hasn't yet gotten tired of Republican politicians wasting time and money doing futile gestures to make sure everyone knows what their opinion on Obamacare is. You show them Rand Paul!
It's as pity things that sound like they might be a good idea are too often submitted with partisan intent, rather than to genuinely make long-term improvements to the system; it makes it harder to get them passed. I seem to recall congress exempting itself from quite a several regulatory requirements and worker rights' laws.
An Ohio legislative board voted Monday to fund Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, the last step toward its adoption, at the request of Republican Gov. John Kasich's administration to circumvent a hostile state legislature.
The request passed the seven-member board 5-2 to fund the expansion for two years, according to the Columbus Dispatch. It will cover up to 275,000 additional low-income people.
That followed the Kasich administration request to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to expand the program's eligiblity, which was approved. The whole manuever could, however, be subject to legal challenges from conservatives, according to the Associated Press.
lol Danglars. You don't think the tea party is extreme. I must ask what you consider extreme. They're the definition of extreme! You look up extreme in the dictionary, and you get this picture:
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has ordered his administration to withdraw its appeal of a New Jersey Supreme court ruling allowing gay couples to get married.
The New Jersey high court on Friday refused a request by the Christie administration to delay a ruling by a judge that allowed same-sex couples to get married in New Jersey. After the ruling the Christie administration said it would appeal the decision.
Couples in New Jersey began getting married early Monday within minutes of New Jersey, becoming the 13th state (plus the District of Columbia) to allow same-sex marriage.
Sen.-elect Cory Booker (D-N.J.) officiated some of the marriages.
Christie ordered acting Attorney General John Hoffman (R) to withdraw the Christie administration's appeal of the case, Garden State Equality vs. Paula Dow, on Monday morning.
Carlo Key, a Republican judge in Bexar County, Texas, announced Monday in a campaign ad that he was leaving the Republican party and will run for re-election as a Democrat.
"I cannot tolerate a political party that demeans Texans based on their sexual orientation, the color of their skin or their economic status," Key says in the ad.
Key attributes his switch to a fractured and transforming Republican party.
"For too long, the Republican party has been at war with itself. Rational Republican beliefs have given way to ideological character assassination," he says. "Pragmatism and principle have been overtaken by pettiness and bigotry."
Key also criticizes federal Republicans for shutting down the government in an effort to defund the health care law.
"I cannot place my name on the ballot of the political party that is proud to destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of federal workers over the vain attempt to repeal a law that would provide health care for millions of people throughout our country," he says in the ad.
On October 22 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote: Doesn't sound like that guy was much of a republican to begin with if that's his stated reason for switching parties.
By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things.
Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved.
On October 22 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote: Doesn't sound like that guy was much of a republican to begin with if that's his stated reason for switching parties.
By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things.
Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved.
What I am saying is that I doubt that that is the sole/real reason why he left. I don't know the guy, but I bet he's rather liberal across the board.
EDIT: Seriously, what kind of person wakes up one day and suddenly discovers that he's in a party full of assholes and bigots and then announces that he's leaving because of it? It's not like the republican stance on gay marriage is anything new.
I wonder why he switched to democrat instead of running as independent. I know it's harder to run as an independent in general; but if he's already an incumbent and well known in the community, it shouldn't be too hard to just go independent. Certainly it's expected that recent events will cause a number of moderates who could really be in either party to switch.
I wonder why democrats haven't tried to make a tolerable right-wing branch of the party to run in the heavily republican areas. There's enough history of fiscal conversative/social liberal, as well as enough flexibility on most issues, to get some candidates in I think. Politicians are generally fairly flexible on where they stand, so finding someone willing to work on that balance for a chance at getting a seat. Even if people aren't in lockstep with the democrats, the facts of where their funding comes from and who their party is will still have considerable effect on their net votes, so it would seem worthwhile to do from a strategic standpoint for democrats.
Personally, my main gripe with the democrats over the past decade or so has been that they seem ineffective (still beats republicans, but not by a whole lot).
editing to respond to poster 2 up; there's always a number of people who don't fully agree with either party, but feel the need to be in one of them (especially if you want to get elected). They often have long-standing gripes against the party, but find it an acceptable compromise for now; it could be that the recent shutdown debacle, and the growing possibility of a split within the republican party was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, and increased the list of dislikes about the party enough to justify leaving it. Of course some of it is him staking out claims for his new party certainly.
On October 22 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote: Doesn't sound like that guy was much of a republican to begin with if that's his stated reason for switching parties.
By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things.
Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved.
What I am saying is that I doubt that that is the sole/real reason why he left. I don't know the guy, but I bet he's rather liberal across the board.
EDIT: Seriously, what kind of person wakes up one day and suddenly discovers that he's in a party full of assholes and bigots and then announces that he's leaving because of it? It's not like the republican stance on gay marriage is anything new.
I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thing wasn't that big to him when he got into politics it could be that they've moved further away from him on a bunch of issues and the government shutdown concentrating on Obamacare may have been the last straw for him. It wouldn't be surprising to me to see more moderate republicans becoming independent or liberal candidates in the future. Its funny really because Obamacare was actually Dolecare Circa 1996, it just shows how far a party can move in 10 years.
On October 22 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote: Doesn't sound like that guy was much of a republican to begin with if that's his stated reason for switching parties.
By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things.
Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved.
What I am saying is that I doubt that that is the sole/real reason why he left. I don't know the guy, but I bet he's rather liberal across the board.
EDIT: Seriously, what kind of person wakes up one day and suddenly discovers that he's in a party full of assholes and bigots and then announces that he's leaving because of it? It's not like the republican stance on gay marriage is anything new.
I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thing wasn't that big to him when he got into politics it could be that they've moved further away from him on a bunch of issues and the government shutdown concentrating on Obamacare may have been the last straw for him. It wouldn't be surprising to me to see more moderate republicans becoming independent or liberal candidates in the future. Its funny really because Obamacare was actually Dolecare Circa 1996, it just shows how far a party can move in 10 years.
Unless you're an established politician, going independent is political suicide.
Also, I don't get where all this crap about how far the republican party has moved is coming from. Take it from a republican -- the party's platform has barely changed since Reagan, particularly on social issues. What has changed is the electorate, and liberals have taken over the democrat party. The "conservative democrat" is basically extinct. There are still plenty of liberal republicans out there to go along with the hardline conservatives.
On October 22 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote: Doesn't sound like that guy was much of a republican to begin with if that's his stated reason for switching parties.
By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things.
Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved.
What I am saying is that I doubt that that is the sole/real reason why he left. I don't know the guy, but I bet he's rather liberal across the board.
EDIT: Seriously, what kind of person wakes up one day and suddenly discovers that he's in a party full of assholes and bigots and then announces that he's leaving because of it? It's not like the republican stance on gay marriage is anything new.
I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thing wasn't that big to him when he got into politics it could be that they've moved further away from him on a bunch of issues and the government shutdown concentrating on Obamacare may have been the last straw for him. It wouldn't be surprising to me to see more moderate republicans becoming independent or liberal candidates in the future. Its funny really because Obamacare was actually Dolecare Circa 1996, it just shows how far a party can move in 10 years.
Unless you're an established politician, going independent is political suicide.
Also, I don't get where all this crap about how far the republican party has moved is coming from. Take it from a republican -- the party's platform has barely changed since Reagan, particularly on social issues. What has changed is the electorate, and liberals have taken over the democrat party. The "conservative democrat" is basically extinct. There are still plenty of liberal republicans out there to go along with the hardline conservatives.
And that is one of the main problems right there. Society changed, and you won't score points with the majority of today's electorate with a social policies platform from the 80s.
On October 22 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote: Doesn't sound like that guy was much of a republican to begin with if that's his stated reason for switching parties.
By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things.
Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved.
What I am saying is that I doubt that that is the sole/real reason why he left. I don't know the guy, but I bet he's rather liberal across the board.
EDIT: Seriously, what kind of person wakes up one day and suddenly discovers that he's in a party full of assholes and bigots and then announces that he's leaving because of it? It's not like the republican stance on gay marriage is anything new.
I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thing wasn't that big to him when he got into politics it could be that they've moved further away from him on a bunch of issues and the government shutdown concentrating on Obamacare may have been the last straw for him. It wouldn't be surprising to me to see more moderate republicans becoming independent or liberal candidates in the future. Its funny really because Obamacare was actually Dolecare Circa 1996, it just shows how far a party can move in 10 years.
Unless you're an established politician, going independent is political suicide.
Also, I don't get where all this crap about how far the republican party has moved is coming from. Take it from a republican -- the party's platform has barely changed since Reagan, particularly on social issues. What has changed is the electorate, and liberals have taken over the democrat party. The "conservative democrat" is basically extinct. There are still plenty of liberal republicans out there to go along with the hardline conservatives.
I'd say that the tea party movement and appease that aspect of the party has caused the republican's to move. Maybe the platform didn't change all that much but the party certainly has. I mean it's pretty much unheard of the amount of filibusters that have been used by the Republican's against this president, and a president has been set by the Republican's that it's okay to not pay the bills of the country because you don't agree with something that has already been passed into law. It's wildly irresponsible to engage in that sort of brinksmanship. And I brought up Bob Doles healthcare bill which was basically Obamacare because its what the Republican party's candidate in 1996 Bob Dole proposed as a solution rather then go single payer which is what Clinton wanted to do. But that's lost in the Ether, because it was acceptable for the republican's in 1996 to compromise like that, but not acceptable now. That to me show's a shift in the party, what the platform is/ isn't doesn't matter in this case.
On October 22 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote: Doesn't sound like that guy was much of a republican to begin with if that's his stated reason for switching parties.
By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things.
Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved.
What I am saying is that I doubt that that is the sole/real reason why he left. I don't know the guy, but I bet he's rather liberal across the board.
EDIT: Seriously, what kind of person wakes up one day and suddenly discovers that he's in a party full of assholes and bigots and then announces that he's leaving because of it? It's not like the republican stance on gay marriage is anything new.
I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thing wasn't that big to him when he got into politics it could be that they've moved further away from him on a bunch of issues and the government shutdown concentrating on Obamacare may have been the last straw for him. It wouldn't be surprising to me to see more moderate republicans becoming independent or liberal candidates in the future. Its funny really because Obamacare was actually Dolecare Circa 1996, it just shows how far a party can move in 10 years.
Yeah the gay marriage stance usually changes when someone you care about gets denied rights or freedoms... Well unless you're a political Cheney.
On October 22 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote: Doesn't sound like that guy was much of a republican to begin with if that's his stated reason for switching parties.
By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things.
Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved.
What I am saying is that I doubt that that is the sole/real reason why he left. I don't know the guy, but I bet he's rather liberal across the board.
EDIT: Seriously, what kind of person wakes up one day and suddenly discovers that he's in a party full of assholes and bigots and then announces that he's leaving because of it? It's not like the republican stance on gay marriage is anything new.
I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thing wasn't that big to him when he got into politics it could be that they've moved further away from him on a bunch of issues and the government shutdown concentrating on Obamacare may have been the last straw for him. It wouldn't be surprising to me to see more moderate republicans becoming independent or liberal candidates in the future. Its funny really because Obamacare was actually Dolecare Circa 1996, it just shows how far a party can move in 10 years.
Yeah the gay marriage stance usually changes when someone you care about gets denied rights or freedoms... Well unless you're a political Cheney.
To me I don't get why its an issue at all, it should fall to the states to do a referendum and decide for themselves. It's not a political issue but a civil rights issue. And when Republican's figure out that it pushes your younger voters away from you. It's 2013 by now most of us has known atleast 1 person in school that was gay. I've known 5 and have one openly gey friend, I can't abide by him not having the same rights, and yet I lean politically conservative in my own country. Do they not realize the dilemma that creates for a voter like me? I'd otherwise vote for them but can't because of that one issue. In my province I didn't vote Wild Rose during provincial elections 100% because of the remarks of Wild Rose candidates with regards to homosexuality and if you go back that is probably the issue that most cost that party the election.
On October 22 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote: Doesn't sound like that guy was much of a republican to begin with if that's his stated reason for switching parties.
By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things.
Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved.
What I am saying is that I doubt that that is the sole/real reason why he left. I don't know the guy, but I bet he's rather liberal across the board.
EDIT: Seriously, what kind of person wakes up one day and suddenly discovers that he's in a party full of assholes and bigots and then announces that he's leaving because of it? It's not like the republican stance on gay marriage is anything new.
I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thing wasn't that big to him when he got into politics it could be that they've moved further away from him on a bunch of issues and the government shutdown concentrating on Obamacare may have been the last straw for him. It wouldn't be surprising to me to see more moderate republicans becoming independent or liberal candidates in the future. Its funny really because Obamacare was actually Dolecare Circa 1996, it just shows how far a party can move in 10 years.
It seems you don't know much about GOP history. Of course the GOP holds a ton of unconscionable views as do the Democrats. I'm sure those role-reversals will happen real quick when one party gains power and the other loses it. Partisanship for sake of partisanship is about the dumbest shit I've ever seen. If you were a person of any ethical fiber then you would take a look at both parties and hoist the Black Flag as Mencken quipped.
If anything current society is trending more libertarian. More people are against the NSA surveillance, against Government-run/managed healthcare, against Foreign Wars, against expanding Welfare, against violations of Civil Liberties, and for more local power and sovereignty and completely turned off of both parties. Of course, that's the natural course when Government takes more and more power and people find out what that means. Of course, Americans in general are very apathetic so they'll bitch and complain and the status quo will keep on marching until the circus and bread runs out. I can't wait to that day when this abysmal 'union' is broken and this insane jockeying for power is over with. You can have your utopia if you just let the 'red states' leave, or you can leave them, and us libertarians can have our purple state in NH. Of course, people on either side can't stand the idea that people disobey their imposed authority (or more correctly, their tax farm - all about money and power).
EPT
