|
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 January 21 2018 10:13 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 08:22 Danglars wrote:On January 21 2018 07:14 mozoku wrote:On January 20 2018 14:33 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 14:29 NewSunshine wrote:On January 20 2018 14:27 Introvert wrote:
I find it fascinating that in 2013 it was the minority party's fault but this time we all play dumb and pretend the filibuster doesn't exist. Especially funny since Schumer objected to the motion for unanimous consent to move to a vote.
Shows how intellectually bankrupt Democrats are on shutdown politics. Republicans blamed their own party last time. Are you really about to pretend that with Republicans in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, the Democrats are to blame in any meaningful way? Your boys did this. Own it and hold them accountable. Yep! One party suggested a clean bill, the other ensured it required 60 votes then didn't grant them. I'm making actual arguments while everyone here is being intellectually dishonest to an amazing extent and making vague arguments about "controlling all branches." In previous years we would have heard about how the minority party has to make sacrifices and accept that they don't run it all. Now, that argument has disappeared. It has to be dishonesty, no one in this thread is stupid enough to try and argue it's any different, so they don't. So have fun, the primaries will be so much more boring. This is way back now, but want to highlight how true this is. I'm honestly sort of flabbergasted at the doublethink tbh. Interestingly, it's not just here. The official line from Schumer appears to be "they control all three branches" while conveniently ignoring they're still unable to avoid a shutdown without Dem votes. If someone wanted to argue DACA is worth it and shutdown politics is justified now but wasn't in 2013, I could at least disagree while understanding the argument. Instead, the suspension of reason/active ignorance feels eerily Trumpian. It's even more worrisome to me when the supposed intellectual party are willing to fall for this nonsense tbh. And ... you prompt another wave of dishonest responses. Its Trumpian, like one party elected him and the other party elected to use his tactics. Honest question, would you include mine among the "dishonest responses" you're referring to? I think I've been trying pretty hard to make good faith comments about this, but if people are going to assume I'm dishonest anyway I won't bother to put in the effort
That looked like an honest question and perspective (that I disagree with, but not what I was referring to). The other arguments presented for why it was really Republican's fault, and how those arguments twisted and turned (Introvert/Mozoku pair of posts) was what stood out.
|
On January 21 2018 11:03 mozoku wrote:
The telling part of this is that none of you want to explicitly state what exactly the Dems want the GOP to compromise on and just keep vaguely referring to what's on the table as "an unreasonable deal because the GOP never compromises!" It's like all of you forgot that the point of a funding bill is well... funding. There are were no poison pills in the resolution put up for vote last night. The GOP isn't doing "whatever it wants." It's literally just trying to pass a clean funding bill.
Could Trump and the GOP have agreed to a DACA deal and avoided this? Yes. Is Trump incompetent? Yes. Does that change the fact that a clean funding bill was put to vote that would have funded the government, and that bill was supported by nearly all Republicans and opposed by nearly all Democrats? No, it doesn't.
Whether or not Trump blew up a previous deal doesn't change the fact that the Democrats had agency in that vote to either accept a clean funding bill and keep the government running, or to reject it and shut down the government in an attempt to gain leverage on DACA negotiations. They chose the latter. There's really no argument to be made here.
Could you argue the GOP is at fault for no DACA? Sure. Could you argue the shutdown is justified this time? Sure. What you cannot argue is that the GOP caused the shutdown. That's factually false.
I mean, I'm not sure what kind of "cause" you're talking about here. The Democrats could have said "okay, GOP, we'll believe your lies that you won't just kick this can a month." That's true. But by equal token, the GOP leadership could have also said "let's put the bipartisan bill on the floor right now that we said we would make last time we kicked the can so we don't have to kick the can a month." It's like watching two people choking each other to death and saying "it's definitely X's fault for not letting go first."
Right now it's like those two people choking each other said a month ago "let's go out for burritos by next month, we like burritos and without us the burrito stand will go out of business, one of us has a car, and we're both really hungry," this month the person with the car decided "eh, maybe we can go next month" even though the burrito stand is closing soon. Who "causes" the resulting altercation?
(Also, the "clean" CR included extensions on delays of ACA taxes that would doubtless be used to justify future cuts-you can read it yourself here)
|
On January 21 2018 11:03 mozoku wrote:
The telling part of this is that none of you want to explicitly state what exactly the Dems want the GOP to compromise on and just keep vaguely referring to what's on the table as "an unreasonable deal because the GOP never compromises!" It's like all of you forgot that the point of a funding bill is well... funding. There are were no poison pills in the resolution put up for vote last night. The GOP isn't doing "whatever it wants." It's literally just trying to pass a clean funding bill.
Could Trump and the GOP have agreed to a DACA deal and avoided this? Yes. Is Trump incompetent? Yes. Does that change the fact that a clean funding bill was put to vote that would have funded the government, and that bill was supported by nearly all Republicans and opposed by nearly all Democrats? No, it doesn't.
Whether or not Trump blew up a previous deal doesn't change the fact that the Democrats had agency in that vote to either accept a clean funding bill and keep the government running, or to reject it and shut down the government in an attempt to gain leverage on DACA negotiations. They chose the latter. There's really no argument to be made here.
Could you argue the GOP is at fault for no DACA? Sure. Could you argue the shutdown is justified this time? Sure. What you cannot argue is that the GOP caused the shutdown. That's factually false.
that might be the case if your President would be without a veto-power.
As it stands, the way you set up the way you pass bills it just happens to be impossible to get things the minority party wants passed as a standalone bill because
a) It won't be put to the floor in the first place
b) even if you somehow get that done and put it on Trumps desk he can still just veto it. We both know he would veto the fuck out of every standalone DACA reform
You're basicly saying that Dems should have given up on DACA on that specific day, should have just funded the government and then come back to fight for DACA on another day. Fully well knowing that you need to attach it to something else if you're the minority party or else you don't have a chance to fight for it in the first place.
I'd call it a shitty system but it's what it is. If you want to get even the most minor change as the minority party you have to force it being attached to something else and the only thing that makes it "unmoral" or not is public opinion wether or not that fight for it is reasonable or not I guess.
Say Dems had fought not just for DACA but on top of that for universal healthcare, for Universal Income and a complete opening of all borders so that everyone can get in no matter what just for shitz and giggles. I'm sure noone would be sitting here thinking "mmmh yeah.... I don't think they could have gotten it somehow else so I approve of them holding the government hostage over it", people would think Dems are crazy for demanding that much.
Likewise, say Republicans had actually offered something in return, I don't think we would have people saying that it's so easily their fault either because they would have actually offered something. But they were asking for everything they want without giving something in return.
|
On January 21 2018 10:54 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 09:37 mozoku wrote:On January 21 2018 08:10 NewSunshine wrote:On January 21 2018 07:14 mozoku wrote:On January 20 2018 14:33 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 14:29 NewSunshine wrote:On January 20 2018 14:27 Introvert wrote:
I find it fascinating that in 2013 it was the minority party's fault but this time we all play dumb and pretend the filibuster doesn't exist. Especially funny since Schumer objected to the motion for unanimous consent to move to a vote.
Shows how intellectually bankrupt Democrats are on shutdown politics. Republicans blamed their own party last time. Are you really about to pretend that with Republicans in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, the Democrats are to blame in any meaningful way? Your boys did this. Own it and hold them accountable. Yep! One party suggested a clean bill, the other ensured it required 60 votes then didn't grant them. I'm making actual arguments while everyone here is being intellectually dishonest to an amazing extent and making vague arguments about "controlling all branches." In previous years we would have heard about how the minority party has to make sacrifices and accept that they don't run it all. Now, that argument has disappeared. It has to be dishonesty, no one in this thread is stupid enough to try and argue it's any different, so they don't. So have fun, the primaries will be so much more boring. This is way back now, but want to highlight how true this is. I'm honestly sort of flabbergasted at the doublethink tbh. Interestingly, it's not just here. The official line from Schumer appears to be "they control all three branches" while conveniently ignoring they're still unable to avoid a shutdown without Dem votes.If someone wanted to argue DACA is worth it and shutdown politics is justified now but wasn't in 2013, I could at least disagree while understanding the argument. Instead, the suspension of reason/active ignorance feels eerily Trumpian. It's even more worrisome to me when the supposed intellectual party are willing to fall for this nonsense tbh. People aren't ignoring it, rather that's precisely the point. You have a party that's unwilling to reach any form of compromise with opposing views, and have spent so long saying no to everyone that they don't even know how to agree with each other anymore. Honestly, I don't know how anyone can see what's happened and still shill for Republicans, they've just shown everyone the most complete and utter failure a leadership possibly can. You don't get to complain that the minority didn't just go along with everything you wanted. This is a government built on compromise. And your boys are bent on eliminating it and just running the show themselves. Surprise, it doesn't work. DACA has nothing to with funding the government. If you want DACA to remain (which I do), you need to win the elections necessary to do so. Democrats didn't. To make up for it, they're refusing to fund the government until DACA is restored and then complaining that the GOP never compromises when the party that actually won the elections says no. There's no way to look at it without it being literally "hostage tactics." Most of the posts here are shunning real arguments in here in favor of just GOP-bashing (and deservedly so), but it's still nothing more than the whataboutism that you guys constantly complain about. Just as a sidenote, do you know how democracy works? Just out of interest. Let me remind you: not 100% of the US citizens are behind what republicans want to do. That's the reason they don't have 100% majority everywhere. In fact in terms of your president, the majority didn't actually want him as president in the first place, and it was out of their hands. He won because the US is one of the countries where some votes matter more than others. The "well they are more so they can do what they want" is the dumbest argument i've heard today. The democrats won enough elections to have a say as well, they represent 40% or whatever of your fucking country. It's called "opposition". Look it up. Very necessary, regardless of how much you think that republicans should be able to do whatever the fuck they want because they were better at gerrymandering.
I really enjoyed this post. Here's me in July:
On July 18 2017 12:59 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2017 12:55 Wulfey_LA wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 18 2017 11:59 Introvert wrote:
Every Republican who voted for this in 2015 should be shamed if they balk now.
The Republican policy platform has long devolved into sticking it to the libs. Look at all the praise by Trumpkins for Gorka cause he sticks it to the libs on TV. There is no real Republican policy ... even on taxes. It is crazy. They could pass a 10% capital gains tax cut right now with 50 votes but they don't. Only thing the REpublican party can still do is Judges, and that is because of the power of faith. The Left's energy is literally behind a movement called "The Resistance" and you're only concerned about Republicans being obstructionist? Sticking it to the other party is the standard opposition party strategy. Counterproductive as it is to actually getting things done, welcome to American politics.
On July 19 2017 08:19 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 07:30 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 07:23 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 07:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I believe that Danglars is talking about in regards to Democrats is that they aren't offering up anything in the vacuum that is left in the leadership ranks. They are satisfied to just watch the Republicans flail and fail. Danglars is saying that, instead of waiting for all of this Russia/Collusion/Obstruction mess to clear up, now is the time to push a message and get out some alternative choices for the public to see. Right now, if they want to pick up those seats, their message needs to be that they are working to solve the problems. On July 19 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 06:22 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:14 Doodsmack wrote:On July 19 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:03 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Congress as such isn't focused on Russia, a committee is but Congress is free to do whatever they want,
The only thing they are doing tho is failing to pass anything at all.
That's also why Russia is so much in the news. There is nothing else coming out of the Government because they are utterly paralyzed by their own internal issues. When I'm talking about what Democrats are doing and how it's hurting them in 2018/2020, I'm more or less expecting responses to touch on the point. Not the status of committees, but the dearth of leadership and lack of message that doesn't involve Trump or Russia. Or tell me why it doesn't matter or I'm wrong. Your poll referred to what Congress is doing, not what Democrats are doing. You used the poll to support an argument about what Democrats are doing. By undercutting the support for your argument, his point very clearly responded to your post. My poll referred to the public' disgust with the Russia distraction. It has an effect on Congress. I showed how it means bad things for absent Democrat leadership, but apparently that's too damaging to discuss. Oh well. Go cite the poll and tell me why it's bad for Republicans, I mean be my guest. I'm very much in favor of making the argument than dodging the argument. A Harvard-Harris poll showed majorities from both parties say Congress should stop focusing on Russia and focus instead on national security, the economy, and health care. 73% are concerned the Russia probes have distracted Congress from the issues that matter. Congress Congress is free to focus on NS, economy and Healthcare. Congress is failing to do any of it because every single one of their proposals keeps failing. I'm in a particularly good mood today, so I'll help you out one more time. Democrats have been doing nothing but focus on Trump and Russia. They have no message. Their allies in media have been focusing on Trump and Russia as well. The public has shown in the poll that they think it's a distraction and impacts congressional focus. Do you think this harms Democrats? Do you think I'm wrong about Democrats lacking a message or Democrats only focusing on the Russia angle? Do you actually reject the poll, judging from your wish that the poll showed people just don't like Congress, rather than disliking the rhetoric on Russia? I have a feeling that somewhere deep down you agree with me, but want to sidetrack it to a more pleasant topic for you. I responded to the information in the poll you linked, plain and simple. As for the real question you tried to hide behind the poll. No I don't think Democrats should stop talking about Russia. This is the biggest controversy in politics in decades, a President has been all but confirmed to have taken dirt on his opponent from a foreign government during the election. As for their lack of a message. No, I don't see it as an issue. Mid-terms are further away then peoples memory. Nothing being said now sticks other then a vague sense of 'stuff' that happened. If we're a few months out and they have no message then yes, you have a point. But now? No. Focus on the unprecedented level of shit that is Trump and the Republicans failure to govern despite controlling all 3 branches. ZerOCool, I think you can see now that he's arguing that the poll doesn't mean Democrats should change on the Russia stuff. They have the choice to focus on issues that matter more to Americans, but here we have one person (albeit not in the US) that thinks it's fine to be all about this controversy. In this sphere, it's about the most stark disagreement you can ask for. Not that you're misunderstanding what I said, but you're disagreeing with the argument. But you have both sides and Gorsameth moved on to addressing the topic (Controversy itself is good enough, lack of a message isn't an issue due to the year between now and midterm elections, any message now wouldn't stick). I'm fine illustrating that disagreement and showing why I think the poll matters, without arguing forcefully that people will remember this in the midterms and the controversy itself is adequately handled with by pending investigations. The Republicans are floundering around aimlessly. Why should the Democrats supply them with solutions after 7 years of pure obstructionism? I think both parties are scum. It's just that around here (and most places tbh) a lot people have a hard time understanding that the Dems operate in basically the same way that the Republicans do for some reason. I fully expect the Dems to be obstructionist. It's a proven opposition party strategy. It has nothing to do with being Democrat or Republican.
I'm well aware of how opposition works. You guys only seemed to have figured it out yesterday though.
|
On January 21 2018 11:03 mozoku wrote:
The telling part of this is that none of you want to explicitly state what exactly the Dems want the GOP to compromise on and just keep vaguely referring to what's on the table as "an unreasonable deal because the GOP never compromises!" It's like all of you forgot that the point of a funding bill is well... funding. There are were no poison pills in the resolution put up for vote last night. The GOP isn't doing "whatever it wants." It's literally just trying to pass a clean funding bill.
Could Trump and the GOP have agreed to a DACA deal and avoided this? Yes. Is Trump incompetent? Yes. Does that change the fact that a clean funding bill was put to vote that would have funded the government, and that bill was supported by nearly all Republicans and opposed by nearly all Democrats? No, it doesn't.
Whether or not Trump blew up a previous deal doesn't change the fact that the Democrats had agency in that vote to either accept a clean funding bill and keep the government running, or to reject it and shut down the government in an attempt to gain leverage on DACA negotiations. They chose the latter. There's really no argument to be made here.
Could you argue the GOP is at fault for no DACA? Sure. Could you argue the shutdown is justified this time? Sure. What you cannot argue is that the GOP caused the shutdown. That's factually false.
I'm going to try by best to explain why I don't think it's so cut-and-dried as you're describing it in the bolded bit above. I'd welcome you to try to explain where you think I'm wrong. And for the record, that's not me beating my chest in a challenge – I easily might be wrong. I'm not an expert on politics, and in this case, I'm not totally sure what I think about this shutdown. In 2013 it looked clearly like the Republicans' fault to me; in this case it feels a lot less clear-cut.
If we consider the long-term budget renewal as a negotiation, I'll try to enumerate what each side is hoping to get out of the final deal:
Mutual Goals
continue funding the government
DACA (?)
CHIP (?)
Democrats
DACA (?)
CHIP funding (?)
other stuff?
Republicans
more military funding
border wall / increased border security funding
other stuff?
(Side note: I marked DACA and CHIP with (?) because at various points they have seemed like either mutual goals or just Democrats' goals; at the moment I would say that both sides want CHIP but Democrats want it more, and Democrats want DACA while Republicans, on average, don't. But that's just my estimation, thus the question mark)
There's a variety of, again, long-term deals we could imagine coming out of that set of terms for a negotiation. Something Trump has pretty clearly suggested on Twitter was that the Democrats fund his wall in exchange for legislative protections for DACA recipients. But that's just one example (and one that I don't think Democrats would accept).
But what the Republicans offered last night was not a long-term deal. It was a short-term CR. The premise of the short-term CR is "let's pass this limited funding of the government to avert a shutdown while we negotiate a long-term budget deal." But of course, to do that they have to come to a deal on what short-term CR to do.
So let's consider the short-term CR as a separate negotiation, and once again ask what each side is hoping to get out of it.
Mutual Goals
temporarily fund the government for some time interval while negotiations for a long-term deal continue
CHIP (?)
Democrats
time interval: ~1 week
CHIP(?)
Republicans
time interval: 1 month
elimination of some minor Obamacare taxes
(CHIP appears in this list too because its funding runs out in the short-term)
I tried to make all of the above more or less non-partisan analysis; if anyone disagrees with any of the above characterizations, please say so, because I honestly thought that was all pretty much agreed upon.
Now here's what I think we can say factually. Republicans and Democrats together failed to come to an agreement in the negotiations for a long-term deal. They also failed to come to an agreement in the negotiations for a [b]short-term[b] deal. Without either a long-term or short-term budget deal, the government shut down.
I don't think we can say with the same factual certainty whose fault either of those failures was. I think the mistake you're making is looking at the Democrats long-term rhetoric (we need DACA as part of a deal) and juxtaposing with the Republicans short-term proposal (1 month CR with CHIP funding), and seeing it as "Republicans just want a clean CR, but Democrats won't do it without DACA." Then a vote was held on the Republicans' proposal, and Democrats opposed it, so that appeared to confirm your interpretation.
The examples that would disprove your interpretation are hypothetical, but I think they do disprove it. If, hypothetically, Mitch McConnell had in a moment of spinelessness or insanity or whatever other reason, brought a vote to amend the CR to only fund the government for 1 week, I don't know whether it would have passed, but I absolutely believe Dems would have voted for it. If the amendment passed, and in a moment of continued insanity McConnell then brought a vote for cloture on the now-shortened CR, I don't know if it would have passed, but I absolutely think the Dems would have voted for it. That behavior would be inconsistent with the attitude of "we won't do a CR unless it includes DACA."
All the reporting on the negotiations that went on last night (to my mind, at least) confirms to me this interpretation. All the haggling seemed to be over the length of the CR. Republicans were announcing that they were offering a 3-week "off-ramp" if Democrats wanted to avert a shutdown. Democrats refused. Democrats offered a deal that would expire on January 29th; Republicans refused. At one point Bob Corker said the negotiations had haggled the range down to "somewhere between the 2nd and the 8th of February."
Just like the long-term deal, we could argue about whose short-term wish list is more meritorious, or who was being more intransigent, to try to pin blame on someone for the failure to reach a deal. But I simply don't think you can factually state "the Democrats wouldn't take the Republicans' 1-month CR, so it's their fault." The Republicans were just as unwilling to accept the one-week CR. If either side had capitulated to the other's timeline, they could have averted the shutdown, so in that sense, it was entirely within both sides' power to stop it.
Forgive me for not putting in the work to make this post shorter, but really, I'd like to hear where you think I'm either mistaken or engaging in Trumpian dishonesty/denial of logic.
Edit:
On January 21 2018 12:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 10:13 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2018 08:22 Danglars wrote:On January 21 2018 07:14 mozoku wrote:On January 20 2018 14:33 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 14:29 NewSunshine wrote:On January 20 2018 14:27 Introvert wrote:
I find it fascinating that in 2013 it was the minority party's fault but this time we all play dumb and pretend the filibuster doesn't exist. Especially funny since Schumer objected to the motion for unanimous consent to move to a vote.
Shows how intellectually bankrupt Democrats are on shutdown politics. Republicans blamed their own party last time. Are you really about to pretend that with Republicans in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, the Democrats are to blame in any meaningful way? Your boys did this. Own it and hold them accountable. Yep! One party suggested a clean bill, the other ensured it required 60 votes then didn't grant them. I'm making actual arguments while everyone here is being intellectually dishonest to an amazing extent and making vague arguments about "controlling all branches." In previous years we would have heard about how the minority party has to make sacrifices and accept that they don't run it all. Now, that argument has disappeared. It has to be dishonesty, no one in this thread is stupid enough to try and argue it's any different, so they don't. So have fun, the primaries will be so much more boring. This is way back now, but want to highlight how true this is. I'm honestly sort of flabbergasted at the doublethink tbh. Interestingly, it's not just here. The official line from Schumer appears to be "they control all three branches" while conveniently ignoring they're still unable to avoid a shutdown without Dem votes. If someone wanted to argue DACA is worth it and shutdown politics is justified now but wasn't in 2013, I could at least disagree while understanding the argument. Instead, the suspension of reason/active ignorance feels eerily Trumpian. It's even more worrisome to me when the supposed intellectual party are willing to fall for this nonsense tbh. And ... you prompt another wave of dishonest responses. Its Trumpian, like one party elected him and the other party elected to use his tactics. Honest question, would you include mine among the "dishonest responses" you're referring to? I think I've been trying pretty hard to make good faith comments about this, but if people are going to assume I'm dishonest anyway I won't bother to put in the effort That looked like an honest question and perspective (that I disagree with, but not what I was referring to). The other arguments presented for why it was really Republican's fault, and how those arguments twisted and turned (Introvert/Mozoku pair of posts) was what stood out.
Thanks, I appreciate the clarification.
|
On January 21 2018 12:30 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 10:54 m4ini wrote:On January 21 2018 09:37 mozoku wrote:On January 21 2018 08:10 NewSunshine wrote:On January 21 2018 07:14 mozoku wrote:On January 20 2018 14:33 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 14:29 NewSunshine wrote:On January 20 2018 14:27 Introvert wrote:
I find it fascinating that in 2013 it was the minority party's fault but this time we all play dumb and pretend the filibuster doesn't exist. Especially funny since Schumer objected to the motion for unanimous consent to move to a vote.
Shows how intellectually bankrupt Democrats are on shutdown politics. Republicans blamed their own party last time. Are you really about to pretend that with Republicans in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, the Democrats are to blame in any meaningful way? Your boys did this. Own it and hold them accountable. Yep! One party suggested a clean bill, the other ensured it required 60 votes then didn't grant them. I'm making actual arguments while everyone here is being intellectually dishonest to an amazing extent and making vague arguments about "controlling all branches." In previous years we would have heard about how the minority party has to make sacrifices and accept that they don't run it all. Now, that argument has disappeared. It has to be dishonesty, no one in this thread is stupid enough to try and argue it's any different, so they don't. So have fun, the primaries will be so much more boring. This is way back now, but want to highlight how true this is. I'm honestly sort of flabbergasted at the doublethink tbh. Interestingly, it's not just here. The official line from Schumer appears to be "they control all three branches" while conveniently ignoring they're still unable to avoid a shutdown without Dem votes.If someone wanted to argue DACA is worth it and shutdown politics is justified now but wasn't in 2013, I could at least disagree while understanding the argument. Instead, the suspension of reason/active ignorance feels eerily Trumpian. It's even more worrisome to me when the supposed intellectual party are willing to fall for this nonsense tbh. People aren't ignoring it, rather that's precisely the point. You have a party that's unwilling to reach any form of compromise with opposing views, and have spent so long saying no to everyone that they don't even know how to agree with each other anymore. Honestly, I don't know how anyone can see what's happened and still shill for Republicans, they've just shown everyone the most complete and utter failure a leadership possibly can. You don't get to complain that the minority didn't just go along with everything you wanted. This is a government built on compromise. And your boys are bent on eliminating it and just running the show themselves. Surprise, it doesn't work. DACA has nothing to with funding the government. If you want DACA to remain (which I do), you need to win the elections necessary to do so. Democrats didn't. To make up for it, they're refusing to fund the government until DACA is restored and then complaining that the GOP never compromises when the party that actually won the elections says no. There's no way to look at it without it being literally "hostage tactics." Most of the posts here are shunning real arguments in here in favor of just GOP-bashing (and deservedly so), but it's still nothing more than the whataboutism that you guys constantly complain about. Just as a sidenote, do you know how democracy works? Just out of interest. Let me remind you: not 100% of the US citizens are behind what republicans want to do. That's the reason they don't have 100% majority everywhere. In fact in terms of your president, the majority didn't actually want him as president in the first place, and it was out of their hands. He won because the US is one of the countries where some votes matter more than others. The "well they are more so they can do what they want" is the dumbest argument i've heard today. The democrats won enough elections to have a say as well, they represent 40% or whatever of your fucking country. It's called "opposition". Look it up. Very necessary, regardless of how much you think that republicans should be able to do whatever the fuck they want because they were better at gerrymandering. I really enjoyed this post. Here's me in July: Show nested quote +On July 18 2017 12:59 mozoku wrote:On July 18 2017 12:55 Wulfey_LA wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The Republican policy platform has long devolved into sticking it to the libs. Look at all the praise by Trumpkins for Gorka cause he sticks it to the libs on TV. There is no real Republican policy ... even on taxes. It is crazy. They could pass a 10% capital gains tax cut right now with 50 votes but they don't. Only thing the REpublican party can still do is Judges, and that is because of the power of faith. The Left's energy is literally behind a movement called "The Resistance" and you're only concerned about Republicans being obstructionist? Sticking it to the other party is the standard opposition party strategy. Counterproductive as it is to actually getting things done, welcome to American politics. Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 08:19 mozoku wrote:On July 19 2017 07:30 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 07:23 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 07:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I believe that Danglars is talking about in regards to Democrats is that they aren't offering up anything in the vacuum that is left in the leadership ranks. They are satisfied to just watch the Republicans flail and fail. Danglars is saying that, instead of waiting for all of this Russia/Collusion/Obstruction mess to clear up, now is the time to push a message and get out some alternative choices for the public to see. Right now, if they want to pick up those seats, their message needs to be that they are working to solve the problems. On July 19 2017 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 06:38 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2017 06:22 Danglars wrote:On July 19 2017 06:14 Doodsmack wrote:On July 19 2017 06:06 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
When I'm talking about what Democrats are doing and how it's hurting them in 2018/2020, I'm more or less expecting responses to touch on the point. Not the status of committees, but the dearth of leadership and lack of message that doesn't involve Trump or Russia. Or tell me why it doesn't matter or I'm wrong. Your poll referred to what Congress is doing, not what Democrats are doing. You used the poll to support an argument about what Democrats are doing. By undercutting the support for your argument, his point very clearly responded to your post. My poll referred to the public' disgust with the Russia distraction. It has an effect on Congress. I showed how it means bad things for absent Democrat leadership, but apparently that's too damaging to discuss. Oh well. Go cite the poll and tell me why it's bad for Republicans, I mean be my guest. I'm very much in favor of making the argument than dodging the argument. A Harvard-Harris poll showed majorities from both parties say Congress should stop focusing on Russia and focus instead on national security, the economy, and health care. 73% are concerned the Russia probes have distracted Congress from the issues that matter. Congress Congress is free to focus on NS, economy and Healthcare. Congress is failing to do any of it because every single one of their proposals keeps failing. I'm in a particularly good mood today, so I'll help you out one more time. Democrats have been doing nothing but focus on Trump and Russia. They have no message. Their allies in media have been focusing on Trump and Russia as well. The public has shown in the poll that they think it's a distraction and impacts congressional focus. Do you think this harms Democrats? Do you think I'm wrong about Democrats lacking a message or Democrats only focusing on the Russia angle? Do you actually reject the poll, judging from your wish that the poll showed people just don't like Congress, rather than disliking the rhetoric on Russia? I have a feeling that somewhere deep down you agree with me, but want to sidetrack it to a more pleasant topic for you. I responded to the information in the poll you linked, plain and simple. As for the real question you tried to hide behind the poll. No I don't think Democrats should stop talking about Russia. This is the biggest controversy in politics in decades, a President has been all but confirmed to have taken dirt on his opponent from a foreign government during the election. As for their lack of a message. No, I don't see it as an issue. Mid-terms are further away then peoples memory. Nothing being said now sticks other then a vague sense of 'stuff' that happened. If we're a few months out and they have no message then yes, you have a point. But now? No. Focus on the unprecedented level of shit that is Trump and the Republicans failure to govern despite controlling all 3 branches. ZerOCool, I think you can see now that he's arguing that the poll doesn't mean Democrats should change on the Russia stuff. They have the choice to focus on issues that matter more to Americans, but here we have one person (albeit not in the US) that thinks it's fine to be all about this controversy. In this sphere, it's about the most stark disagreement you can ask for. Not that you're misunderstanding what I said, but you're disagreeing with the argument. But you have both sides and Gorsameth moved on to addressing the topic (Controversy itself is good enough, lack of a message isn't an issue due to the year between now and midterm elections, any message now wouldn't stick). I'm fine illustrating that disagreement and showing why I think the poll matters, without arguing forcefully that people will remember this in the midterms and the controversy itself is adequately handled with by pending investigations. The Republicans are floundering around aimlessly. Why should the Democrats supply them with solutions after 7 years of pure obstructionism? I think both parties are scum. It's just that around here (and most places tbh) a lot people have a hard time understanding that the Dems operate in basically the same way that the Republicans do for some reason. I fully expect the Dems to be obstructionist. It's a proven opposition party strategy. It has nothing to do with being Democrat or Republican. I'm well aware of how opposition works. You guys only seemed to have figured it out yesterday though.
First, i call things like i see them. If someone's bullshitting, i call them out - as happened when our lefties here circlejerked about punching nazis, taking away their rights etc.
I don't know if i was part of that discussion, if they were obstructionist, i would have called them out too.
Second, more importantly:
Oh, that's interesting. Could you briefly point me to where the points are listed? Thanks.
Or is it the kinda "i didn't watch the video, but i'm absolutely convinced that my side did nothing wrong" thing again?
|
On January 21 2018 12:29 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 11:03 mozoku wrote:
The telling part of this is that none of you want to explicitly state what exactly the Dems want the GOP to compromise on and just keep vaguely referring to what's on the table as "an unreasonable deal because the GOP never compromises!" It's like all of you forgot that the point of a funding bill is well... funding. There are were no poison pills in the resolution put up for vote last night. The GOP isn't doing "whatever it wants." It's literally just trying to pass a clean funding bill.
Could Trump and the GOP have agreed to a DACA deal and avoided this? Yes. Is Trump incompetent? Yes. Does that change the fact that a clean funding bill was put to vote that would have funded the government, and that bill was supported by nearly all Republicans and opposed by nearly all Democrats? No, it doesn't.
Whether or not Trump blew up a previous deal doesn't change the fact that the Democrats had agency in that vote to either accept a clean funding bill and keep the government running, or to reject it and shut down the government in an attempt to gain leverage on DACA negotiations. They chose the latter. There's really no argument to be made here.
Could you argue the GOP is at fault for no DACA? Sure. Could you argue the shutdown is justified this time? Sure. What you cannot argue is that the GOP caused the shutdown. That's factually false. that might be the case if your President would be without a veto-power. As it stands, the way you set up the way you pass bills it just happens to be impossible to get things the minority party wants passed as a standalone bill because a) It won't be put to the floor in the first place b) even if you somehow get that done and put it on Trumps desk he can still just veto it. We both know he would veto the fuck out of every standalone DACA reform You're basicly saying that Dems should have given up on DACA on that specific day, should have just funded the government and then come back to fight for DACA on another day. Fully well knowing that you need to attach it to something else if you're the minority party or else you don't have a chance to fight for it in the first place. I'd call it a shitty system but it's what it is. If you want to get even the most minor change as the minority party you have to force it being attached to something else and the only thing that makes it "unmoral" or not is public opinion wether or not that fight for it is reasonable or not I guess. Say Dems had fought not just for DACA but on top of that for universal healthcare, for Universal Income and a complete opening of all borders so that everyone can get in no matter what just for shitz and giggles. I'm sure noone would be sitting here thinking "mmmh yeah.... I don't think they could have gotten it somehow else so I approve of them holding the government hostage over it", people would think Dems are crazy for demanding that much. Likewise, say Republicans had actually offered something in return, I don't think we would have people saying that it's so easily their fault either because they would have actually offered something. But they were asking for everything they want without giving something in return.
This is an acceptable point of view... if you're willing to acknowledge it was also acceptable for Ted Cruz in 2013. I've acknowledged that it's fair argument to claim the shutdown is worth it for DACA. It's just that doing so implicitly concedes that "hostage tactics" are justified in some legislative circumstances, and there's not really any way a consistent way to say "well when it's for DACA it's a legitimate path, but when it's for spending cuts it's hostage tactics."
|
On January 21 2018 12:39 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 12:29 Toadesstern wrote:On January 21 2018 11:03 mozoku wrote:
The telling part of this is that none of you want to explicitly state what exactly the Dems want the GOP to compromise on and just keep vaguely referring to what's on the table as "an unreasonable deal because the GOP never compromises!" It's like all of you forgot that the point of a funding bill is well... funding. There are were no poison pills in the resolution put up for vote last night. The GOP isn't doing "whatever it wants." It's literally just trying to pass a clean funding bill.
Could Trump and the GOP have agreed to a DACA deal and avoided this? Yes. Is Trump incompetent? Yes. Does that change the fact that a clean funding bill was put to vote that would have funded the government, and that bill was supported by nearly all Republicans and opposed by nearly all Democrats? No, it doesn't.
Whether or not Trump blew up a previous deal doesn't change the fact that the Democrats had agency in that vote to either accept a clean funding bill and keep the government running, or to reject it and shut down the government in an attempt to gain leverage on DACA negotiations. They chose the latter. There's really no argument to be made here.
Could you argue the GOP is at fault for no DACA? Sure. Could you argue the shutdown is justified this time? Sure. What you cannot argue is that the GOP caused the shutdown. That's factually false. that might be the case if your President would be without a veto-power. As it stands, the way you set up the way you pass bills it just happens to be impossible to get things the minority party wants passed as a standalone bill because a) It won't be put to the floor in the first place b) even if you somehow get that done and put it on Trumps desk he can still just veto it. We both know he would veto the fuck out of every standalone DACA reform You're basicly saying that Dems should have given up on DACA on that specific day, should have just funded the government and then come back to fight for DACA on another day. Fully well knowing that you need to attach it to something else if you're the minority party or else you don't have a chance to fight for it in the first place. I'd call it a shitty system but it's what it is. If you want to get even the most minor change as the minority party you have to force it being attached to something else and the only thing that makes it "unmoral" or not is public opinion wether or not that fight for it is reasonable or not I guess. Say Dems had fought not just for DACA but on top of that for universal healthcare, for Universal Income and a complete opening of all borders so that everyone can get in no matter what just for shitz and giggles. I'm sure noone would be sitting here thinking "mmmh yeah.... I don't think they could have gotten it somehow else so I approve of them holding the government hostage over it", people would think Dems are crazy for demanding that much. Likewise, say Republicans had actually offered something in return, I don't think we would have people saying that it's so easily their fault either because they would have actually offered something. But they were asking for everything they want without giving something in return. This is an acceptable point of view... if you're willing to acknowledge it was also acceptable for Ted Cruz in 2013. I've acknowledged that it's fair argument to claim the shutdown is worth it for DACA. It's just that doing so implicitly concedes that "hostage tactics" are justified in some legislative circumstances, and there's not really any way a consistent way to say "well when it's for DACA it's a legitimate path, but when it's for spending cuts it's hostage tactics."
I'd argue that Dems were actually willing to give something in return back in 2013 and thus it's a bit different, But I honestly don't feel like putting in the effort to look up how it played out in 2013 so I could be wrong.
The reason I call this out as bullshit is because the party in power is asking for 100% of what they want while not being willing to offer up even just 1% of what Dems would want.
Whereas when I think about 2013 I vaguely remember the party in power being willing to offer at least some things, even if that wasn't what Ted Cruz wanted.
Let's say Republicans had offered something else here to sweeten the deal that Dems want and Republicans usually wouldn't want. Let's say, for example, something that makes Obamacare actually better in a way the Dems want, instead of the usual Reps trying to blow it up. Or whatever else. I wouldn't be sitting here arguing about how it's the Republicans fault, I'd be saying that Dems didn't get what they want (DACA) but should probably take that Obamacare thing (or whatever else) because that's how compromises work.
Or at least, I'd be sitting here judging wether I think the thing they got offered in return is worth something and thus wether it would be unreasonable to refuse.
But Trump is hellbent on getting 100% of his agenda passed and making sure Dems get 0% of theirs. That won't work.
|
Actually 2013 is a really idiotic example.
The reason the government shut down wasn't because democrats didn't want to give in to republicans. Many republicans thought the bill would pass the house with ACA in its original form. The democrats didn't budge back then because they knew the reason that they'll shut down is not because they have an unacceptable proposal: republicans were expected to vote in favour.
The reason was that Boehner didn't pass it to the house. Boehner refused to let republicans vote on the bill that was expected to pass.
How exactly is this comparable to what's happening now?
|
On January 21 2018 13:17 m4ini wrote:
Actually 2013 is a really idiotic example.
The reason the government shut down wasn't because democrats didn't want to give in to republicans. Many republicans thought the bill would pass the house with ACA in its original form. The democrats didn't budge back then because they knew the reason that they'll shut down is not because they have an unacceptable proposal: republicans were expected to vote in favour.
The reason was that Boehner didn't pass it to the house. Boehner refused to let republicans vote on the bill that was expected to pass.
How exactly is this comparable to what's happening now?
It's actually pretty comparable, if you consider that the bipartisan Senate bill described in the tweet below probably could have passed the house with most of the Democrats and less than half of the Republicans.
Basically, Hastert rule in action. When Republicans control the house, the house passes stuff that is a compromise between the moderate conservatives and the far right conservatives, and Democrats in the house are more or less ignored.
Also, regarding hostage taking, Republicans basically didn't fund CHIP for four months so that they could hold it hostage right now.
|
On January 21 2018 12:38 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 21 2018 11:03 mozoku wrote:
The telling part of this is that none of you want to explicitly state what exactly the Dems want the GOP to compromise on and just keep vaguely referring to what's on the table as "an unreasonable deal because the GOP never compromises!" It's like all of you forgot that the point of a funding bill is well... funding. There are were no poison pills in the resolution put up for vote last night. The GOP isn't doing "whatever it wants." It's literally just trying to pass a clean funding bill.
Could Trump and the GOP have agreed to a DACA deal and avoided this? Yes. Is Trump incompetent? Yes. Does that change the fact that a clean funding bill was put to vote that would have funded the government, and that bill was supported by nearly all Republicans and opposed by nearly all Democrats? No, it doesn't.
Whether or not Trump blew up a previous deal doesn't change the fact that the Democrats had agency in that vote to either accept a clean funding bill and keep the government running, or to reject it and shut down the government in an attempt to gain leverage on DACA negotiations. They chose the latter. There's really no argument to be made here.
Could you argue the GOP is at fault for no DACA? Sure. Could you argue the shutdown is justified this time? Sure. What you cannot argue is that the GOP caused the shutdown. That's factually false. I'm going to try by best to explain why I don't think it's so cut-and-dried as you're describing it in the bolded bit above. I'd welcome you to try to explain where you think I'm wrong. And for the record, that's not me beating my chest in a challenge – I easily might be wrong. I'm not an expert on politics, and in this case, I'm not totally sure what I think about this shutdown. In 2013 it looked clearly like the Republicans' fault to me; in this case it feels a lot less clear-cut. If we consider the long-term budget renewal as a negotiation, I'll try to enumerate what each side is hoping to get out of the final deal: Mutual Goals
continue funding the government
DACA (?)
CHIP (?)
Democrats
DACA (?)
CHIP funding (?)
other stuff?
Republicans
more military funding
border wall / increased border security funding
other stuff? (Side note: I marked DACA and CHIP with (?) because at various points they have seemed like either mutual goals or just Democrats' goals; at the moment I would say that both sides want CHIP but Democrats want it more, and Democrats want DACA while Republicans, on average, don't. But that's just my estimation, thus the question mark) There's a variety of, again, long-term deals we could imagine coming out of that set of terms for a negotiation. Something Trump has pretty clearly suggested on Twitter was that the Democrats fund his wall in exchange for legislative protections for DACA recipients. But that's just one example (and one that I don't think Democrats would accept). But what the Republicans offered last night was not a long-term deal. It was a short-term CR. The premise of the short-term CR is "let's pass this limited funding of the government to avert a shutdown while we negotiate a long-term budget deal." But of course, to do that they have to come to a deal on what short-term CR to do. So let's consider the short-term CR as a separate negotiation, and once again ask what each side is hoping to get out of it. Mutual Goals
temporarily fund the government for some time interval while negotiations for a long-term deal continue
CHIP (?)
Democrats
time interval: ~1 week
CHIP(?)
Republicans
time interval: 1 month
elimination of some minor Obamacare taxes (CHIP appears in this list too because its funding runs out in the short-term) I tried to make all of the above more or less non-partisan analysis; if anyone disagrees with any of the above characterizations, please say so, because I honestly thought that was all pretty much agreed upon. Now here's what I think we can say factually. Republicans and Democrats together failed to come to an agreement in the negotiations for a long-term deal. They also failed to come to an agreement in the negotiations for a [b]short-term[b] deal. Without either a long-term or short-term budget deal, the government shut down. I don't think we can say with the same factual certainty whose fault either of those failures was. I think the mistake you're making is looking at the Democrats long-term rhetoric (we need DACA as part of a deal) and juxtaposing with the Republicans short-term proposal (1 month CR with CHIP funding), and seeing it as "Republicans just want a clean CR, but Democrats won't do it without DACA." Then a vote was held on the Republicans' proposal, and Democrats opposed it, so that appeared to confirm your interpretation. The examples that would disprove your interpretation are hypothetical, but I think they do disprove it. If, hypothetically, Mitch McConnell had in a moment of spinelessness or insanity or whatever other reason, brought a vote to amend the CR to only fund the government for 1 week, I don't know whether it would have passed, but I absolutely believe Dems would have voted for it. If the amendment passed, and in a moment of continued insanity McConnell then brought a vote for cloture on the now-shortened CR, I don't know if it would have passed, but I absolutely think the Dems would have voted for it. That behavior would be inconsistent with the attitude of "we won't do a CR unless it includes DACA." All the reporting on the negotiations that went on last night (to my mind, at least) confirms to me this interpretation. All the haggling seemed to be over the length of the CR. Republicans were announcing that they were offering a 3-week "off-ramp" if Democrats wanted to avert a shutdown. Democrats refused. Democrats offered a deal that would expire on January 29th; Republicans refused. At one point Bob Corker said the negotiations had haggled the range down to "somewhere between the 2nd and the 8th of February." Just like the long-term deal, we could argue about whose short-term wish list is more meritorious, or who was being more intransigent, to try to pin blame on someone for the failure to reach a deal. But I simply don't think you can factually state "the Democrats wouldn't take the Republicans' 1-month CR, so it's their fault." The Republicans were just as unwilling to accept the one-week CR. If either side had capitulated to the other's timeline, they could have averted the shutdown, so in that sense, it was entirely within both sides' power to stop it. Forgive me for not putting in the work to make this post shorter, but really, I'd like to hear where you think I'm either mistaken or engaging in Trumpian dishonesty/denial of logic. Edit: On January 21 2018 12:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 10:13 ChristianS wrote:On January 21 2018 08:22 Danglars wrote:On January 21 2018 07:14 mozoku wrote:On January 20 2018 14:33 Introvert wrote:On January 20 2018 14:29 NewSunshine wrote:On January 20 2018 14:27 Introvert wrote:
I find it fascinating that in 2013 it was the minority party's fault but this time we all play dumb and pretend the filibuster doesn't exist. Especially funny since Schumer objected to the motion for unanimous consent to move to a vote.
Shows how intellectually bankrupt Democrats are on shutdown politics. Republicans blamed their own party last time. Are you really about to pretend that with Republicans in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, the Democrats are to blame in any meaningful way? Your boys did this. Own it and hold them accountable. Yep! One party suggested a clean bill, the other ensured it required 60 votes then didn't grant them. I'm making actual arguments while everyone here is being intellectually dishonest to an amazing extent and making vague arguments about "controlling all branches." In previous years we would have heard about how the minority party has to make sacrifices and accept that they don't run it all. Now, that argument has disappeared. It has to be dishonesty, no one in this thread is stupid enough to try and argue it's any different, so they don't. So have fun, the primaries will be so much more boring. This is way back now, but want to highlight how true this is. I'm honestly sort of flabbergasted at the doublethink tbh. Interestingly, it's not just here. The official line from Schumer appears to be "they control all three branches" while conveniently ignoring they're still unable to avoid a shutdown without Dem votes. If someone wanted to argue DACA is worth it and shutdown politics is justified now but wasn't in 2013, I could at least disagree while understanding the argument. Instead, the suspension of reason/active ignorance feels eerily Trumpian. It's even more worrisome to me when the supposed intellectual party are willing to fall for this nonsense tbh. And ... you prompt another wave of dishonest responses. Its Trumpian, like one party elected him and the other party elected to use his tactics. Honest question, would you include mine among the "dishonest responses" you're referring to? I think I've been trying pretty hard to make good faith comments about this, but if people are going to assume I'm dishonest anyway I won't bother to put in the effort That looked like an honest question and perspective (that I disagree with, but not what I was referring to). The other arguments presented for why it was really Republican's fault, and how those arguments twisted and turned (Introvert/Mozoku pair of posts) was what stood out. Thanks, I appreciate the clarification.
This is a much more reasonable analysis than what I've seen from other posters, and I can mostly agree with it. That said, I don't see it as in conflict with what I've posted. I don't see how the the breakdown of long-term negotiations, from a funding perspective, can be blamed on Republicans. Doing so requires the assumption that DACA is somehow necessarily linked to funding. The short-term analysis is doesn't contradict what I've read, but it doesn't absolve the Democrats either. While the Democrats would have preferred a one week CR, I've seen no reason to consider a one-month CR a "poison pill." Nor do I see any issue with the majority party holding a vote on their preferred timeline instead of their opposition's. It isn't really a defensible response to shut down the government because you didn't get the timeline you wanted on the timeline.
The Dem strategy for the shutdown is this: Republicans usually are worse in generic shutdown politics because they're the small government party; they also control all three relevant chambers; their president is unpopular and widely seen as incompetent; and DACA is popular. Hence, they feel they can force a shutdown and essentially blame the Republicans to gain leverage on DACA. The optics from their perspective are fantastic.
The issue is that, in an ironic reversal of roles, the facts and truth of the matter actually lie with the Republicans on this one. This is why both parties are somewhat comfortable going into the shutdown: the Dems think they can persuade the public it's the GOP's fault with of all the circumstantial evidence, and the GOP feels it can successfully explain to the public that the Dems are the ones that actually chose the shutdown.
|
On January 21 2018 13:17 m4ini wrote:
Actually 2013 is a really idiotic example.
The reason the government shut down wasn't because democrats didn't want to give in to republicans. Many republicans thought the bill would pass the house with ACA in its original form. The democrats didn't budge back then because they knew the reason that they'll shut down is not because they have an unacceptable proposal: republicans were expected to vote in favour.
The reason was that Boehner didn't pass it to the house. Boehner refused to let republicans vote on the bill that was expected to pass.
How exactly is this comparable to what's happening now?
I don't see how you think it's not comparable. Republican(s) (leadership) refused to vote for/on a funding bill that included the ACA without changes. Today, Dems refuse to vote for a funding bill that doesn't include DACA. It's not complicated.
|
On January 21 2018 17:26 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2018 13:17 m4ini wrote:
Actually 2013 is a really idiotic example.
The reason the government shut down wasn't because democrats didn't want to give in to republicans. Many republicans thought the bill would pass the house with ACA in its original form. The democrats didn't budge back then because they knew the reason that they'll shut down is not because they have an unacceptable proposal: republicans were expected to vote in favour.
The reason was that Boehner didn't pass it to the house. Boehner refused to let republicans vote on the bill that was expected to pass.
How exactly is this comparable to what's happening now? I don't see how you think it's not comparable. Republican(s) (leadership) refused to vote for/on a funding bill that included the ACA without changes. Today, Dems refuse to vote for a funding bill that doesn't include DACA. It's not complicated.
Was there a deal in 2013 that was blown up by the president at the last minute...over...and over? Was there an honest majority in congress for any specific changes in 2013? No but there is for DACA. A 60 vote majority would easily happen for a clean DACA bill and everyone knows it. 60 votes would NEVER happen for the healthcare changes. Was there an imminent impending deadline that forces immediate action in regards to 2013? No, but there is in 2018.
|
|
|
This actually makes me really miss Carlin.
|
On January 21 2018 19:57 GreenHorizons wrote:This actually makes me really miss Carlin.
He would have had a good time.. can’t make that up really.
|
On January 21 2018 08:08 Plansix wrote:
Amnesty is a word they use to stoke outrage. It implies something unfair, even those most of our families came over when there were no immigration laws or restrictions. The Dreams will have arrive the exact same way my great grandmother and grandfather did, as children.
You brought this up before when saying your ancestors were illiterate. It's not relevant because we don't live in that world now, I think you must know the sophistry when you're typing because it's so transparent, we do have laws now and breaking them is unfair both to the people who come in accordance with those laws and the citizens of the government who sets them to begin with. You are uncharacteristically romanticizing a past when there were laws for people to own people, and we wouldn't consider that fair just because it happened.
|
You're reading a specific argument into his general statement that isn't necessarily there; plansix could very well be pointing to immigration in the past in the context of "fairness" in the interest of complicating what "fairness" means when our country owes a great deal of its success to open and liberal immigration policies.
|
On January 21 2018 22:02 farvacola wrote:
You're reading a specific argument into his general statement that isn't necessarily there; plansix could very well be pointing to immigration in the past in the context of "fairness" in the interest of complicating what "fairness" means when our country owes a great deal of its success to open and liberal immigration policies.
Hole in one.
|
By all means correct me on the following things as I understand them (and attempt to grapple with this latest situation)
* 2013 shutdown: This came about - if I remember right - because a certain wing of the Republican GOP insisted point blank that they would not sign any bill that didn't completely defund the ACA. I vividly recall Bill O'Reilly of all people telling a Tea Party speaker that they couldn't possibly win in that situation because the ACA had been signed into law and therefore had to be funded.
* 2018 shutdown: The Dems and GOP came up with a bipartisan bill that would have sorted everything out, but for some reason it failed. I'm not sure why. Did the GOP feel they were giving up too much?
* The GOP then put forward a bill that required the Dems to accept multiple cuts to the ACA in order to keep things open. They refused, as the ACA is a hard line they don't want to budge on.
* The Dems tried to put forth an alternative, but Mitch refused to allow a vote on it. Was there something the GOP objected to in the alternative? I've not heard a take on it.
* Somewhere in this mess, Trump tweeted that he didn't support the inclusion of CHIP funding, which seems to be the one thing everyone supports? Or is that a Dem thing? Looking at the posts here, everyone seems to think CHIP funding is good.
* The Republicans still can't get everyone voting together because a few voted no. And a few Democrats voted yes, and they failed by a slim margin. If the Republicans all voted in lockstep would they have passed it, plus the Dem yes votes? Why did the nos no?
* Is DACA the big sticking point here? Or CHIP? Or the border wall? Or something entirely different? I'm genuinely trying to figure this out but the messaging is really garbled and at the moment seems to involve a lot of 'YOU DID IT' from both sides without any clear explanation of WHY whoever did what they did, did it.
* Part of the issue seems to be that the issues at foot have been getting Continuing Resolutioned for months, and some senators have had enough and want them sorted instead of having to talk about them again in another few months. Is this part of the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
