|
|
90% of people think obstructionism is bad? Really?
It's simple to disprove this claim. Just look at any number of approval ratings on passed legislation, such as the Affordable Care Act. You won't find 90% approval of that law, and so less than 90% of people would likely think obstructing that law would be a bad thing.
And it's not Republicans that are solely being judged, it's Congress. People don't see those two things as synonymous.
|
On November 05 2012 07:19 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 06:40 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:On November 05 2012 02:16 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 01:22 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Sigh.
You Democrats love that number, don't you? It's the only argument you have.
Yet none of you understand how laws are made at all. I'm not a Democrat. I'm a RINO, I guess, but mind explaining what else there is to it? I look at the filibuster number and see a bunch of Republican babies in Congress who didn't get their way so their going to block everything they don't want. If it's different, I would like to know how. I'm not the only one who feels this way. The minority party since the Newt Speaker era has engaged in obvious obstructionism. They haven't always done it with filibusters. It's usually done in committee during votes of various sorts. You forget that the chair usually has a lot of subject-related power. You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering? I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question. This was not your original point. If this was your original point, then you would have agreed immediately the Republicans have been more obstructionist than the Democrats under Bush. You said it was the same or similar. Now you're saying that obstructionism is growing. If anything this is a reversal of position. No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior. My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans. Judicial. confirmations. And don't give me that "Oh they realize they needa fix that" bullshit. Just proves that they've been chumps utilizing petty tactics and they acknowledge it. Democrats stonewalled judicial confirmations too -_- On November 05 2012 03:26 Risen wrote:
There was no insinuation in my post. I presented my view, a view shared by others, and asked you what was wrong with my view. You proceeded to not answer my question at all. I didn't really expect you to answer it, I guess.
Your view is wrong because it assumes that filibuster numbers are equivalent to the amount of obstructionism. This is false.On November 05 2012 02:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Right, so what's your issue with saying that Republicans have become obstructionists against Obama moreso than Democrats under Bush, and moreso than Republicans under Clinton? Because, as i stated before, it's not this simple. I mean, I guess that's one way to look at it, but obstructionism isn't just a minority party voting no. It involves a lost more political maneuvering than can be quantified. And this is false becauuuuuuse?
Because filibusters are only one method of obstruction. They are only used in certain situations.
To say filibusters determine who's the most obstructionist is the equivalent of saying that the team with the most passing attempts is the Super Bowl Champs. No. It might be a (weak) indicator that the second may be true, but by itself it is not determinative.
|
On November 05 2012 07:21 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 07:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
it's pretty unfair of Democrats to act like Obama has a mandate from the American people to pass his bullshit but the Republican Congress doesn't have a mandate from the people to stop it. obstructionism to Obama's specific agenda was precisely what they were elected to do, and it would be a mockery of liberty and freedom to suggest that the Republicans and the American people should have no power to stop the agenda of whomever it is that they've elected into office. mid-terms are often a way of gauging the degree to which people have accepted the agenda of the President and/or Congress. it is clear in 2010 that the voters, to some degree, had rejected the Democrat agenda and had exercised their electoral power to prevent that agenda from taking full form.
also, any Democrat who complains about Republicans "borking" Obama's court nominees needs to look up why it's called "borking". This is what Republicans were elected to do? The 10% congressional approval rating would disagree with you.
a 10% approval rating means nothing if it is Republicans who make the gains in the election. as of yet, we don't know whether the American people have specifically rejected the Republican "obstruction" or whether the low approval ratings are for the Republicans not doing enough, or for the Democrats for obstructing Republican efforts, or it could even be coincidental to the fact that gridlock has occurred.
basically, you can't just point to an approval rating and say that's all the proof you need that Republicans should stop "obstructing" when the election hasn't even happened yet. you're putting the cart before the horse. approval ratings and polls do not suffice in determining the actual effectiveness of an agenda or of a party's policy positions, especially in lieu of an election. it is clear that Republicans were, to some degree, elected in 2010 to oppose Obama's agenda. the exact nature of the public's wants and desires remain to be seen, and will be confirmed with this election. if Obama is reelected, the Senate remains in Dem hands and the House makes either no Rep. gains or actually has Dem gains, then we can reasonably assume that the American people have rejected the "obstruction". if they elect Romney, elect a Rep. Senate, and we take no losses in the House, than it would be reasonable to assume that the American public has accepted and condoned the "obstruction".
either way, it's the height of dishonesty to suggest that Republicans should not do precisely what they can only assume they were elected to do. if the American people wanted Obama to be able to pass everything than they wouldn't have elected Republicans in 2010. people are not nearly so unintelligent as you seem to think.
|
On November 05 2012 07:49 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 07:19 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 06:40 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:On November 05 2012 02:16 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 01:26 Risen wrote:
[quote]
I'm not a Democrat. I'm a RINO, I guess, but mind explaining what else there is to it? I look at the filibuster number and see a bunch of Republican babies in Congress who didn't get their way so their going to block everything they don't want. If it's different, I would like to know how. I'm not the only one who feels this way. The minority party since the Newt Speaker era has engaged in obvious obstructionism. They haven't always done it with filibusters. It's usually done in committee during votes of various sorts. You forget that the chair usually has a lot of subject-related power. You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering? I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question. This was not your original point. If this was your original point, then you would have agreed immediately the Republicans have been more obstructionist than the Democrats under Bush. You said it was the same or similar. Now you're saying that obstructionism is growing. If anything this is a reversal of position. No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior. My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans. Judicial. confirmations. And don't give me that "Oh they realize they needa fix that" bullshit. Just proves that they've been chumps utilizing petty tactics and they acknowledge it. Democrats stonewalled judicial confirmations too -_- On November 05 2012 03:26 Risen wrote:
There was no insinuation in my post. I presented my view, a view shared by others, and asked you what was wrong with my view. You proceeded to not answer my question at all. I didn't really expect you to answer it, I guess.
Your view is wrong because it assumes that filibuster numbers are equivalent to the amount of obstructionism. This is false.On November 05 2012 02:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Right, so what's your issue with saying that Republicans have become obstructionists against Obama moreso than Democrats under Bush, and moreso than Republicans under Clinton? Because, as i stated before, it's not this simple. I mean, I guess that's one way to look at it, but obstructionism isn't just a minority party voting no. It involves a lost more political maneuvering than can be quantified. And this is false becauuuuuuse? Because filibusters are only one method of obstruction. They are only used in certain situations. To say filibusters determine who's the most obstructionist is the equivalent of saying that the team with the most passing attempts is the Super Bowl Champs. No. It might be a (weak) indicator that the second may be true, but by itself it is not determinative.
U mean it is like a team having the most passing yards. Ever. And considering them the best offense ever. Am I wrong?
|
On November 05 2012 07:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:
90% of people think obstructionism is bad? Really?
It's simple to disprove this claim. Just look at any number of approval ratings on passed legislation, such as the Affordable Care Act. You won't find 90% approval of that law, and so less than 90% of people would likely think obstructing that law would be a bad thing.
And it's not Republicans that are solely being judged, it's Congress. People don't see those two things as synonymous.
To be fair, there is a huge difference between outright obstructing and constructively trying to improve a law, but not getting to a satisfying position. There really is a need for at least some constructivism and cooperation even on partisan legislation. Just sitting in corner with a sign saying "no to anything from a democrat" is just waste of a spot in congress imo.
|
United States13896 Posts
On November 05 2012 07:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can't extrapolate congress' approval rating into blame for either party in particular. Nor can you extrapolate the low approval rating to "congress not getting things done." Because the problem after all is that people disagree on what should and should not be gotten done. The degree of influence the tea party achieved is proof of this fact.
The reason Congress has such low approval ratings is because the liberals think Congress is not liberal enough, and the conservatives think it's not conservative enough, which both translate into "they are doing a bad job."
Is passing legislation like the Affordable Care Act the meaning of "get things done," or is balancing the budget and making cuts? Obstructionism is good if you disagree with what's being obstructed, obviously.
The intentions of Republicans to make steps to balance the budget were admirable. Anyone sane, well informed individual in this nation can agree with "fiscal responsibility" when separated from political campaigns, and everyone desires a solution to the issue of the National Debt.
The method of precipitating that change that Republicans put into motion was simply irresponsible however. They packed the snowball and started it rolling down the hill, many under the presumption that the very real possibility of an avalanche of epic proportions was "acceptable," even when experts worldwide agreed that U.S. default would result not only in a local but a world-wide Depression.
Democrats deserve a certain amount of blame for the previous two years that pushed the GOP into this level of maniacal partisanship. The GOP was at it's weakest point in a long time, and when it appeared to them that Democrats weren't interested in even having a conversation [read - Rahm Emmanuel] they resorted to extreme ideologies to win back the House. Problem being these extreme ideologues made for irresponsible politicians who in my opinion ultimately precipitated the reduction in the U.S. credit rating while essentially accomplishing almost none of their desired goal.
I'd recommend The Price of Politics to anyone seriously interested in making their own conclusions regarding what was and still is the primary issue of the 112th U.S. Congress. I found it to be anything but partisan, almost to the point of being boring in points, but was extremely enlightening for me as someone who had done literally no reading at all on the issue up until recently. There's plenty of blame to go around for how fucked up this outgoing Congress was, but far-right Tea Party Republicans are at the top of the list.
This is also going to be a huge issue again as soon as the elections are decided so even if it isn't realistically possible for you to read it by Tuesday its a great debrief of the last two years, and in turn a good reading material for November, December, and January as we approach the Fiscal Cliff.
|
Fine, when Republicans lose in the House, then can I say they weren't doing the job they were hired to do? Sheesh.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 05 2012 07:58 DoubleReed wrote:
Fine, when Republicans lose in the House, then can I say they weren't doing the job they were hired to do? Sheesh.
Not gonna happen. Their gerrymandering was quite effective this time around.
|
On November 05 2012 07:53 natrus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 07:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 07:19 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 06:40 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:On November 05 2012 02:16 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:On November 05 2012 01:34 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
The minority party since the Newt Speaker era has engaged in obvious obstructionism. They haven't always done it with filibusters. It's usually done in committee during votes of various sorts. You forget that the chair usually has a lot of subject-related power. You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering? I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question. This was not your original point. If this was your original point, then you would have agreed immediately the Republicans have been more obstructionist than the Democrats under Bush. You said it was the same or similar. Now you're saying that obstructionism is growing. If anything this is a reversal of position. No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior. My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans. Judicial. confirmations. And don't give me that "Oh they realize they needa fix that" bullshit. Just proves that they've been chumps utilizing petty tactics and they acknowledge it. Democrats stonewalled judicial confirmations too -_- On November 05 2012 03:26 Risen wrote:
There was no insinuation in my post. I presented my view, a view shared by others, and asked you what was wrong with my view. You proceeded to not answer my question at all. I didn't really expect you to answer it, I guess.
Your view is wrong because it assumes that filibuster numbers are equivalent to the amount of obstructionism. This is false.On November 05 2012 02:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Right, so what's your issue with saying that Republicans have become obstructionists against Obama moreso than Democrats under Bush, and moreso than Republicans under Clinton? Because, as i stated before, it's not this simple. I mean, I guess that's one way to look at it, but obstructionism isn't just a minority party voting no. It involves a lost more political maneuvering than can be quantified. And this is false becauuuuuuse? Because filibusters are only one method of obstruction. They are only used in certain situations. To say filibusters determine who's the most obstructionist is the equivalent of saying that the team with the most passing attempts is the Super Bowl Champs. No. It might be a (weak) indicator that the second may be true, but by itself it is not determinative. U mean it is like a team having the most passing yards. Ever. And considering them the best offense ever. Am I wrong?
No, passing attempts.
|
United States13896 Posts
Lets put it this way: Its not difficult to see who was acting more juvenile in Congress when the Republican House shot down the President's Jobs bill. The bill included payroll tax cuts and cuts for small businesses, the very things Republicans are campaigning out there on getting today, but they were willing to vote it down just to spite the current administration. They were willing to compromise their own ideals because they were that committed to not working with the President.
edit: Compromise with the President and the Democrats during the debt ceiling crisis was not even in the picture for significant portion of Republicans. They wanted to accomplish the complete defeat and utter humiliation of the administration when it wasn't politically feasible.
|
On November 05 2012 07:58 DoubleReed wrote:
Fine, when Republicans lose in the House, then can I say they weren't doing the job they were hired to do? Sheesh.
if Romney loses and Republicans make no gains in the Senate (or only gain 1 seat), than you can, in my opinion, make a determination as to the perceptions of the American people.
whether Republican have done the job they were hired to do or not is... subjective. I, as a conservative, would say that they have done much of what I hired them to do. most conservatives would probably agree. most liberals didn't vote for the Reps, so I don't know about them, and most Independents... I'm not sure why they went so Republican last time, so again, I don't know exactly what they "hired" the Tea-Party candidates to do.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
"Hey, Obama, you suck at compromising!"
"Hey, Obama, we hired politicians to obstruct your liberal agenda!"
lol.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
conservatives for tax cuts and balanced budget. srs
|
On November 05 2012 08:03 p4NDemik wrote:
Lets put it this way: Its not difficult to see who was acting more juvenile in Congress when the Republican House shot down the President's Jobs bill. The bill included payroll tax cuts and cuts for small businesses, the very things Republicans are campaigning out there on getting today, but they were willing to vote it down just to spite the current administration. They were willing to compromise their own ideals because they were that committed to not working with the President.
edit: Compromise with the President and the Democrats during the debt ceiling crisis was not even in the picture for significant portion of Republicans. They wanted to accomplish the complete defeat and utter humiliation of the administration when it wasn't politically feasible.
what jobs bill? if it was the 2011 jobs bill, than even a lot of Democrats were wary of that one.
the President's idea of "compromise" during the debt ceiling debate was to force Republicans to put the issue past the election so he wouldn't have to actually fix it in the plain view of the American people. yeah, real fucking classy that move was.
"hey! either help my election by kicking the fiscal can down the road or I'll accuse you of obstructing!"
|
On November 05 2012 07:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can't extrapolate congress' approval rating into blame for either party in particular. Nor can you extrapolate the low approval rating to "congress not getting things done." Because the problem after all is that people disagree on what should and should not be gotten done. The degree of influence the tea party achieved is proof of this fact.
The reason Congress has such low approval ratings is because the liberals think Congress is not liberal enough, and the conservatives think it's not conservative enough, which both translate into "they are doing a bad job."
Is passing legislation like the Affordable Care Act the meaning of "get things done," or is balancing the budget and making cuts? Obstructionism is good if you disagree with what's being obstructed, obviously.
The approval rating is low because congress couldn't agree on anything. The conservatives were being as conservative as possible, and the liberals were being as liberal as possible. Because of this, neither side could agree because neither side wanted to be any less conservative or any less liberal. This is best displayed in the debt ceiling fiasco.
|
On November 05 2012 08:09 FeUerFlieGe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 07:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You can't extrapolate congress' approval rating into blame for either party in particular. Nor can you extrapolate the low approval rating to "congress not getting things done." Because the problem after all is that people disagree on what should and should not be gotten done. The degree of influence the tea party achieved is proof of this fact.
The reason Congress has such low approval ratings is because the liberals think Congress is not liberal enough, and the conservatives think it's not conservative enough, which both translate into "they are doing a bad job."
Is passing legislation like the Affordable Care Act the meaning of "get things done," or is balancing the budget and making cuts? Obstructionism is good if you disagree with what's being obstructed, obviously. The approval rating is low because congress couldn't agree on anything. The conservatives were being as conservative as possible, and the liberals were being as liberal as possible. Because of this, neither side could agree because neither side wanted to be any less conservative or any less liberal. This is best displayed in the debt ceiling fiasco.
The debt ceiling fiasco was more complicated than that. The liberal extremists had no voice, and it was conservative extremists who prevented moderate conservatives from compromising with Obama from passing a center-right Grand Bargain. What's funny is that Republicans later went on to attack Obama for offering to compromise and cut Social Security. In a sense, the GOP (and by extension the whole nation) was held hostage by Tea Partiers who got out of control and really believed in their ideology more than they believed in a functional government, unlike the seasoned GOP politicians.
|
On November 05 2012 08:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 07:53 natrus wrote:On November 05 2012 07:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 07:19 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 06:40 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:On November 05 2012 02:16 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:01 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
You didn't answer me. Let's settle the matter of filibustering before we move to the next indicator. Do you agree Republicans have been way more obstructionists than Democrats when it comes to filibustering? I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question. This was not your original point. If this was your original point, then you would have agreed immediately the Republicans have been more obstructionist than the Democrats under Bush. You said it was the same or similar. Now you're saying that obstructionism is growing. If anything this is a reversal of position. No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior. My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans. Judicial. confirmations. And don't give me that "Oh they realize they needa fix that" bullshit. Just proves that they've been chumps utilizing petty tactics and they acknowledge it. Democrats stonewalled judicial confirmations too -_- On November 05 2012 03:26 Risen wrote:
There was no insinuation in my post. I presented my view, a view shared by others, and asked you what was wrong with my view. You proceeded to not answer my question at all. I didn't really expect you to answer it, I guess.
Your view is wrong because it assumes that filibuster numbers are equivalent to the amount of obstructionism. This is false.On November 05 2012 02:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Right, so what's your issue with saying that Republicans have become obstructionists against Obama moreso than Democrats under Bush, and moreso than Republicans under Clinton? Because, as i stated before, it's not this simple. I mean, I guess that's one way to look at it, but obstructionism isn't just a minority party voting no. It involves a lost more political maneuvering than can be quantified. And this is false becauuuuuuse? Because filibusters are only one method of obstruction. They are only used in certain situations. To say filibusters determine who's the most obstructionist is the equivalent of saying that the team with the most passing attempts is the Super Bowl Champs. No. It might be a (weak) indicator that the second may be true, but by itself it is not determinative. U mean it is like a team having the most passing yards. Ever. And considering them the best offense ever. Am I wrong? No, passing attempts.
Not a football guy I see. That makes no sense.
|
On November 05 2012 08:13 natrus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 08:02 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 07:53 natrus wrote:On November 05 2012 07:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 07:19 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 06:40 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:On November 05 2012 02:16 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:On November 05 2012 02:06 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
I stand by my original point that obstructionism has been continually growing and is not the "fault" of a single party. I'm not sure if that counts as a yes or no for your question.
This was not your original point. If this was your original point, then you would have agreed immediately the Republicans have been more obstructionist than the Democrats under Bush. You said it was the same or similar. Now you're saying that obstructionism is growing. If anything this is a reversal of position. No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior. My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans. Judicial. confirmations. And don't give me that "Oh they realize they needa fix that" bullshit. Just proves that they've been chumps utilizing petty tactics and they acknowledge it. Democrats stonewalled judicial confirmations too -_- On November 05 2012 03:26 Risen wrote:
There was no insinuation in my post. I presented my view, a view shared by others, and asked you what was wrong with my view. You proceeded to not answer my question at all. I didn't really expect you to answer it, I guess.
Your view is wrong because it assumes that filibuster numbers are equivalent to the amount of obstructionism. This is false.On November 05 2012 02:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Right, so what's your issue with saying that Republicans have become obstructionists against Obama moreso than Democrats under Bush, and moreso than Republicans under Clinton? Because, as i stated before, it's not this simple. I mean, I guess that's one way to look at it, but obstructionism isn't just a minority party voting no. It involves a lost more political maneuvering than can be quantified. And this is false becauuuuuuse? Because filibusters are only one method of obstruction. They are only used in certain situations. To say filibusters determine who's the most obstructionist is the equivalent of saying that the team with the most passing attempts is the Super Bowl Champs. No. It might be a (weak) indicator that the second may be true, but by itself it is not determinative. U mean it is like a team having the most passing yards. Ever. And considering them the best offense ever. Am I wrong? No, passing attempts. Not a football guy I see. That makes no sense.
how does passing attempts or completions make any difference whatsoever? either way, the most passing yards does not mean one is the best offense, nor would it make one the champion.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 05 2012 08:17 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2012 08:13 natrus wrote:On November 05 2012 08:02 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 07:53 natrus wrote:On November 05 2012 07:49 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 07:19 Risen wrote:On November 05 2012 06:40 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 04:44 Souma wrote:On November 05 2012 02:16 BluePanther wrote:On November 05 2012 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
This was not your original point. If this was your original point, then you would have agreed immediately the Republicans have been more obstructionist than the Democrats under Bush. You said it was the same or similar. Now you're saying that obstructionism is growing.
If anything this is a reversal of position. No, read what I responded to. He was talking about obstructionism as a Republican strategy and insinuating that Democrats were above that type of behavior. My only reason for jumping in was to correct that misrepresentation -- both parties engage in it. Also, I didn't argue that one was "better" than the other, I said that it was dumb to use filibuster numbers as "proof" of why Democrats were less obstructionist than Republicans. Judicial. confirmations. And don't give me that "Oh they realize they needa fix that" bullshit. Just proves that they've been chumps utilizing petty tactics and they acknowledge it. Democrats stonewalled judicial confirmations too -_- On November 05 2012 03:26 Risen wrote:
There was no insinuation in my post. I presented my view, a view shared by others, and asked you what was wrong with my view. You proceeded to not answer my question at all. I didn't really expect you to answer it, I guess.
Your view is wrong because it assumes that filibuster numbers are equivalent to the amount of obstructionism. This is false.On November 05 2012 02:43 DoubleReed wrote:
Right, so what's your issue with saying that Republicans have become obstructionists against Obama moreso than Democrats under Bush, and moreso than Republicans under Clinton? Because, as i stated before, it's not this simple. I mean, I guess that's one way to look at it, but obstructionism isn't just a minority party voting no. It involves a lost more political maneuvering than can be quantified. And this is false becauuuuuuse? Because filibusters are only one method of obstruction. They are only used in certain situations. To say filibusters determine who's the most obstructionist is the equivalent of saying that the team with the most passing attempts is the Super Bowl Champs. No. It might be a (weak) indicator that the second may be true, but by itself it is not determinative. U mean it is like a team having the most passing yards. Ever. And considering them the best offense ever. Am I wrong? No, passing attempts. Not a football guy I see. That makes no sense. how does passing attempts or completions make any difference whatsoever? either way, the most passing yards does not mean one is the best offense, nor would it make one the champion.
This analogy is stupid because it's not like filibusters were the only thing they did. Ignore the judicial holds all you want, it's not going to disappear.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's more like basketball pre shot clock. difference being that if it gets really hard to get the ball back or force you to do something with it, the opponent may not even bother.
the hallmark of obstruction is not how many times actual obstructive measures are used, but how low a standard for their activation. extreme obstruction could lead to lower number of actual filibusters as the opponent adjusts its behavior knowing that filibusters are expected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
