|
Kind of insane how its not even GOP vs democrats. Its a single man against our government.
|
On October 04 2013 10:18 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 10:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:54 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:25 Jibba wrote:On October 04 2013 09:22 dabom88 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:14 Jibba wrote:
TL Gold is a beautiful thing. And why would you post such a low-content statement that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand without describing why? Because the mental gymnastics being run in this thread are ridiculous. Superfan is just hammering talking point after talking point, that even someone like Krauthammer can't get behind anymore. You'd really have to be Ted Cruz to believe the things he's saying. I'm just wishing we had our old Greasemonkey script back. It's this kind of attitude being put out by mods that creates posters like GreenHorizons. Seriously, have more respect for your position. A summary: 1. Republicans are not holding anything hostage, this is a perfect legitimate tactic (which includes destroying the jobs of 800,000 people which would also mean that the republican claim that ACA is bad because they say it will destroy jobs is unfounded, as they themselves have physically proven that destroying employment is something they are all too eager to do...) Whether it is an advisable tactic and whether it is legitimate are two different things. It being legitimate is a question of constitutionality. It is constitutional. Whether it is advisable is much more debatable. As for them holding something hostage, that's a question of language and semantics. The "destroying jobs" claim is mostly hyperbole on your part. As is them being "eager" to do so. Republicans are attempting to fund the government piece-meal but the Democrats aren't having it. They would rather people suffer than allow the Republicans to gain a political advantage. 2. Republicans and democrats should negotiate. Come on bro wave the olive branch you evil ass dems. I don't think Democrats are evil. I think they are misguided and out of touch. I also think they have been and are being unnecessarily hard-line. 3. Dems should concede everything that they have in this negotiation by funding the government. The republicans will obviously come back after the government is funded and institute the ACA on amiable terms, which is why they never had to resort to holding the country hostage in the first place because they are being entirely reasonable. No... Democrats should be willing to concede something. It would be foolish to expect them to concede everything, and I wouldn't blame them for not wanting to concede everything. They should be willing to put up terms other than "unconditional surrender" though. And of course the Republicans aren't going to lie down on Obamacare. We hate Obamacare. We want it gone. We will never stop trying to get rid of it. Are Democrats ever going to stop trying to get the things they want, just because they failed in the past? Hillarycare was destroyed in the 90s, did that stop them from trying again with Obamacare? The terms offered by the republican house are binary: 0 : Defund obamacare 1 : Have no government funding bill
When defunding was rejected, Republicans asked for a delay. Why didn't Democrats offered a counter-proposal to that?
So no, the republicans have not offered negotiations. The terms haven't changed.
The terms haven't changed because the Democrats haven't changed their terms. Republicans asked for defunding, Democrats rejected it. Republicans asked for a delay. Democrats rejected it. They didn't offer a counter-proposal, they've just said that all they will take is a 100% clean CR.
|
On October 04 2013 10:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 10:07 m4inbrain wrote: That's literally the most retarded thing i've ever seen done by a politician. Then again, tea party. I kinda get the feeling that sanity isn't a musthave there. Yeah I've got to agree that that guy is way out of line there.
SC2Superfan,
Do you not agree that what the GOP is doing sets an awful precedent? Every time the debt ceiling needs to be raised, every time any funding bill needs to be passed, the minority can simply say, 'Negotiate 'X' with us or we will not act' - do you think that's wise? Would you support this principle if there was a GOP president and senate and the Democratic house was saying, 'We won't pass a spending bill until you pass gun reform', and then accuse the GOP of not negotiating?
Let's say the Democrats concede a point, they repeal the medical device tax and the GOP agrees - does this whole song and dance not happen again in two weeks when it's time to raise the debt ceiling? How can you support that? It's unbelievable to me.
|
On October 04 2013 10:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 10:18 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 10:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:54 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:25 Jibba wrote:On October 04 2013 09:22 dabom88 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:14 Jibba wrote:
TL Gold is a beautiful thing. And why would you post such a low-content statement that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand without describing why? Because the mental gymnastics being run in this thread are ridiculous. Superfan is just hammering talking point after talking point, that even someone like Krauthammer can't get behind anymore. You'd really have to be Ted Cruz to believe the things he's saying. I'm just wishing we had our old Greasemonkey script back. It's this kind of attitude being put out by mods that creates posters like GreenHorizons. Seriously, have more respect for your position. A summary: 1. Republicans are not holding anything hostage, this is a perfect legitimate tactic (which includes destroying the jobs of 800,000 people which would also mean that the republican claim that ACA is bad because they say it will destroy jobs is unfounded, as they themselves have physically proven that destroying employment is something they are all too eager to do...) Whether it is an advisable tactic and whether it is legitimate are two different things. It being legitimate is a question of constitutionality. It is constitutional. Whether it is advisable is much more debatable. As for them holding something hostage, that's a question of language and semantics. The "destroying jobs" claim is mostly hyperbole on your part. As is them being "eager" to do so. Republicans are attempting to fund the government piece-meal but the Democrats aren't having it. They would rather people suffer than allow the Republicans to gain a political advantage. 2. Republicans and democrats should negotiate. Come on bro wave the olive branch you evil ass dems. I don't think Democrats are evil. I think they are misguided and out of touch. I also think they have been and are being unnecessarily hard-line. 3. Dems should concede everything that they have in this negotiation by funding the government. The republicans will obviously come back after the government is funded and institute the ACA on amiable terms, which is why they never had to resort to holding the country hostage in the first place because they are being entirely reasonable. No... Democrats should be willing to concede something. It would be foolish to expect them to concede everything, and I wouldn't blame them for not wanting to concede everything. They should be willing to put up terms other than "unconditional surrender" though. And of course the Republicans aren't going to lie down on Obamacare. We hate Obamacare. We want it gone. We will never stop trying to get rid of it. Are Democrats ever going to stop trying to get the things they want, just because they failed in the past? Hillarycare was destroyed in the 90s, did that stop them from trying again with Obamacare? The terms offered by the republican house are binary: 0 : Defund obamacare 1 : Have no government funding bill When defunding was rejected, Republicans asked for a delay. Why didn't Democrats offered a counter-proposal to that? Show nested quote +So no, the republicans have not offered negotiations. The terms haven't changed. The terms haven't changed because the Democrats haven't changed their terms. Republicans asked for defunding, Democrats rejected it. Republicans asked for a delay. Democrats rejected it. They didn't offer a counter-proposal, they've just said that all they will take is a 100% clean CR.
What is something of equal value that the democrats can ask for in exchange for the inevitable destruction of the ACA?
Gay rights? Hah, don't make me laugh. That will happen in the next 10 years on its own.
Abortion rights? That will happen in the next 30 as our population becomes better educated and less rural.
Gun control? Already happening.
How about separation of church and state? Oh wait, we already have that? (in name if nothing else)
|
|
|
From the mind of SuperFan
No... Democrats should be willing to concede something. It would be foolish to expect them to concede everything, and I wouldn't blame them for not wanting to concede everything. They should be willing to put up terms other than "unconditional surrender" though.
Concede SOMETHING?!? you have got to be f'ing kidding.... The CR Dems are asking John Boehner JUST TO PUT TO A VOTE is faaaaaaaaaar away from what they wanted. IN FACT it's closer to Ryan's budget proposal than it is to Obama's......
You could make an argument the same could be said specifically about how the ACA was impacted when the negotiations over it rightfully took place.
![[image loading]](http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g4/lunarmonger/BVnKIMhCIAAFUI-.jpg)
|
On October 04 2013 10:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 10:18 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 10:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:54 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:25 Jibba wrote:On October 04 2013 09:22 dabom88 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:14 Jibba wrote:
TL Gold is a beautiful thing. And why would you post such a low-content statement that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand without describing why? Because the mental gymnastics being run in this thread are ridiculous. Superfan is just hammering talking point after talking point, that even someone like Krauthammer can't get behind anymore. You'd really have to be Ted Cruz to believe the things he's saying. I'm just wishing we had our old Greasemonkey script back. It's this kind of attitude being put out by mods that creates posters like GreenHorizons. Seriously, have more respect for your position. A summary: 1. Republicans are not holding anything hostage, this is a perfect legitimate tactic (which includes destroying the jobs of 800,000 people which would also mean that the republican claim that ACA is bad because they say it will destroy jobs is unfounded, as they themselves have physically proven that destroying employment is something they are all too eager to do...) Whether it is an advisable tactic and whether it is legitimate are two different things. It being legitimate is a question of constitutionality. It is constitutional. Whether it is advisable is much more debatable. As for them holding something hostage, that's a question of language and semantics. The "destroying jobs" claim is mostly hyperbole on your part. As is them being "eager" to do so. Republicans are attempting to fund the government piece-meal but the Democrats aren't having it. They would rather people suffer than allow the Republicans to gain a political advantage. 2. Republicans and democrats should negotiate. Come on bro wave the olive branch you evil ass dems. I don't think Democrats are evil. I think they are misguided and out of touch. I also think they have been and are being unnecessarily hard-line. 3. Dems should concede everything that they have in this negotiation by funding the government. The republicans will obviously come back after the government is funded and institute the ACA on amiable terms, which is why they never had to resort to holding the country hostage in the first place because they are being entirely reasonable. No... Democrats should be willing to concede something. It would be foolish to expect them to concede everything, and I wouldn't blame them for not wanting to concede everything. They should be willing to put up terms other than "unconditional surrender" though. And of course the Republicans aren't going to lie down on Obamacare. We hate Obamacare. We want it gone. We will never stop trying to get rid of it. Are Democrats ever going to stop trying to get the things they want, just because they failed in the past? Hillarycare was destroyed in the 90s, did that stop them from trying again with Obamacare? The terms offered by the republican house are binary: 0 : Defund obamacare 1 : Have no government funding bill When defunding was rejected, Republicans asked for a delay. Why didn't Democrats offered a counter-proposal to that? Show nested quote +So no, the republicans have not offered negotiations. The terms haven't changed. The terms haven't changed because the Democrats haven't changed their terms. Republicans asked for defunding, Democrats rejected it. Republicans asked for a delay. Democrats rejected it. They didn't offer a counter-proposal, they've just said that all they will take is a 100% clean CR.
"Defund or we shutdown!"
- "Nope."
"Okay, then give us one more year trying to get rid of it."
- "Wat?"
I kinda can understand the democrats there. It's not a proposal. It's just promising to ramble for one more year. It's not negotiating, it's like me telling you i won't punch you in the face and kill you to death if you give me all your babies. If you reject that, my next offer would be asking for a week to find other ways to get your babies. edit: and obviously, if you reject that as well, i will punch you in the face and kill you to death.
It's not negotiating. It's threats, everything the republicans offered.
Obviously, the upper paragraph isn't meant as a threat but example.
|
I am not a US citizen, but from a outsider here's what I see.
superfan it is my opinion that it's the Republicans being unnecessary hardass.
1) It is fact that Democrats have negotiated with the Republicans over Obamacare, the current version is very different from the original version that was proposed. It is what enabled the current version to get past all the checkpoints that allowed it to become Law. Despite challenges to the law, it was still upheld to be constitutional by the US courts.
- This shows that the democrats did negotiate, it's the republicans that are being hardass about it
2) It is fact that despite the already gutted version of ACA, the republicans are still trying to mess around with it via loophole in the system instead of the proper norm to challenge a law. The loophole is by attempting to defund ACA, using the exclusion of ACA funds during the budgets.
3) The end result is Democrats deciding that was the the final straw,and drew the line on the floor because of what the Republicans are doing. How so?
The Republicans are setting a precedent that despite being unable to obstruct a bill/law from being carried out, you can still threaten the law by not funding it. This is a threat, not a negotiation by the Republicans.
- It means that any losing party can hold the current dominant party hostage by refusing the budget to be passed unless they get what they want. This is holding the country hostage and your citizens(800,000 directly affected) are being used as a hostage here.This is extremely irresponsible behaviour of the Republicans.
4) The Republicans have failed to realise they are here to serve the people FIRST and FOREMOST instead of their party interests. They have turned a normal government procedure into a political exercise in a bid for power, causing hardship to at least 800,000 citizens. As a outsider viewing in, i am astounded at the amount of irresponsibility being shown here. Now if they hold the debt ceiling hostage too, they have will have shown they are incapable of running the country. Why?
The credit rating of America's Dollar is a huge part of the global economy. If they threaten it too(i think they will based on how childish they have been acting recently), they are basically now holding the whole world hostage against the Democrats. You can already hear the excuses they will be making, "The democrats are refusing to negotiate, it's not our fault that we cant come to a compromise for the debt ceiling! All they have to do is agree to remove ACA and it will be raised!"
I repeat, that is a threat, not a compromise. Those excuses sound similar? It's exactly what the Republicans are using right now, just paraphased "budget" for "debt ceiling".
I sincerely hope this issue will be solved soon.
|
|
|
On October 04 2013 10:33 Salv wrote:
He's gone guys.
Yeah but we're still holding on to the ridiculously optimistic idea that he can be brought back to reality.
|
On October 04 2013 10:33 Salv wrote:
He's gone guys.
Quickly team! To the us politics thread, where more game is to be found!
On topic, people should watch Chris van Hollen's speech ^_^
|
On October 04 2013 10:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 10:18 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 10:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:54 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:25 Jibba wrote:On October 04 2013 09:22 dabom88 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:14 Jibba wrote:
TL Gold is a beautiful thing. And why would you post such a low-content statement that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand without describing why? Because the mental gymnastics being run in this thread are ridiculous. Superfan is just hammering talking point after talking point, that even someone like Krauthammer can't get behind anymore. You'd really have to be Ted Cruz to believe the things he's saying. I'm just wishing we had our old Greasemonkey script back. It's this kind of attitude being put out by mods that creates posters like GreenHorizons. Seriously, have more respect for your position. A summary: 1. Republicans are not holding anything hostage, this is a perfect legitimate tactic (which includes destroying the jobs of 800,000 people which would also mean that the republican claim that ACA is bad because they say it will destroy jobs is unfounded, as they themselves have physically proven that destroying employment is something they are all too eager to do...) Whether it is an advisable tactic and whether it is legitimate are two different things. It being legitimate is a question of constitutionality. It is constitutional. Whether it is advisable is much more debatable. As for them holding something hostage, that's a question of language and semantics. The "destroying jobs" claim is mostly hyperbole on your part. As is them being "eager" to do so. Republicans are attempting to fund the government piece-meal but the Democrats aren't having it. They would rather people suffer than allow the Republicans to gain a political advantage. 2. Republicans and democrats should negotiate. Come on bro wave the olive branch you evil ass dems. I don't think Democrats are evil. I think they are misguided and out of touch. I also think they have been and are being unnecessarily hard-line. 3. Dems should concede everything that they have in this negotiation by funding the government. The republicans will obviously come back after the government is funded and institute the ACA on amiable terms, which is why they never had to resort to holding the country hostage in the first place because they are being entirely reasonable. No... Democrats should be willing to concede something. It would be foolish to expect them to concede everything, and I wouldn't blame them for not wanting to concede everything. They should be willing to put up terms other than "unconditional surrender" though. And of course the Republicans aren't going to lie down on Obamacare. We hate Obamacare. We want it gone. We will never stop trying to get rid of it. Are Democrats ever going to stop trying to get the things they want, just because they failed in the past? Hillarycare was destroyed in the 90s, did that stop them from trying again with Obamacare? The terms offered by the republican house are binary: 0 : Defund obamacare 1 : Have no government funding bill When defunding was rejected, Republicans asked for a delay. Why didn't Democrats offered a counter-proposal to that? Show nested quote +So no, the republicans have not offered negotiations. The terms haven't changed. The terms haven't changed because the Democrats haven't changed their terms. Republicans asked for defunding, Democrats rejected it. Republicans asked for a delay. Democrats rejected it. They didn't offer a counter-proposal, they've just said that all they will take is a 100% clean CR.
Everyone knows that they're asking a delay because they intend to push it back forever... You're not dumb enough not to be aware of this so my conclusion is that you're being dishonest in full knowledge of cause. And the worst thing is, you know that you're disingenuous and you probably think it's perfectly fine to be.
As for the democrats not changing their terms, why would they change their terms on a law that has been passed and enacted and for which 20+ millions of people have postulated? The republicans are the ones who are asking for too much. Thankfully, polls show that the population is aware of that, despite the fact that people tend to put more blame on the president when problems happen in presidential systems.
Blows my mind that your partisan BS is making you blind in that regard... Oh wait, you're not blind, you just lie because your integrity passes after your politics and your ideals.
|
On October 04 2013 10:39 Djzapz wrote:
As for the democrats not changing their terms, why would they change their terms on a law that has been passed and enacted and for which 20+ millions of people have postulated?
This, this, 100x this.
|
At this point with the way opinion is falling can't the Dems just sit back and let the Republicans hang themselves as they take the blame for all this? I'm not saying what side is right or wrong but the sentiment seems to be falling against Republicans so they are essentially screwing themselves in the eyes of the public. They aren't going to win any contested elections at this rate so its either cave to Dems or get roasted in the court of public opinion.
|
Like Napoleon said: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake". I'd imagine that's the game plan here. :D
|
United States24767 Posts
On October 04 2013 11:10 Slaughter wrote:
At this point with the way opinion is falling can't the Dems just sit back and let the Republicans hang themselves as they take the blame for all this? I'm not saying what side is right or wrong but the sentiment seems to be falling against Republicans so they are essentially screwing themselves in the eyes of the public. They aren't going to win any contested elections at this rate so its either cave to Dems or get roasted in the court of public opinion.
Well the democrats actually do care about who this shutdown is hurting and what damage is being done. It is far from insignificant. The republicans have forced the president's hand here, but he still wants this over sooner rather than later.
|
On October 04 2013 10:26 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 10:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 10:18 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 10:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:54 Jormundr wrote:On October 04 2013 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:25 Jibba wrote:On October 04 2013 09:22 dabom88 wrote:On October 04 2013 09:14 Jibba wrote:
TL Gold is a beautiful thing. And why would you post such a low-content statement that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand without describing why? Because the mental gymnastics being run in this thread are ridiculous. Superfan is just hammering talking point after talking point, that even someone like Krauthammer can't get behind anymore. You'd really have to be Ted Cruz to believe the things he's saying. I'm just wishing we had our old Greasemonkey script back. It's this kind of attitude being put out by mods that creates posters like GreenHorizons. Seriously, have more respect for your position. A summary: 1. Republicans are not holding anything hostage, this is a perfect legitimate tactic (which includes destroying the jobs of 800,000 people which would also mean that the republican claim that ACA is bad because they say it will destroy jobs is unfounded, as they themselves have physically proven that destroying employment is something they are all too eager to do...) Whether it is an advisable tactic and whether it is legitimate are two different things. It being legitimate is a question of constitutionality. It is constitutional. Whether it is advisable is much more debatable. As for them holding something hostage, that's a question of language and semantics. The "destroying jobs" claim is mostly hyperbole on your part. As is them being "eager" to do so. Republicans are attempting to fund the government piece-meal but the Democrats aren't having it. They would rather people suffer than allow the Republicans to gain a political advantage. 2. Republicans and democrats should negotiate. Come on bro wave the olive branch you evil ass dems. I don't think Democrats are evil. I think they are misguided and out of touch. I also think they have been and are being unnecessarily hard-line. 3. Dems should concede everything that they have in this negotiation by funding the government. The republicans will obviously come back after the government is funded and institute the ACA on amiable terms, which is why they never had to resort to holding the country hostage in the first place because they are being entirely reasonable. No... Democrats should be willing to concede something. It would be foolish to expect them to concede everything, and I wouldn't blame them for not wanting to concede everything. They should be willing to put up terms other than "unconditional surrender" though. And of course the Republicans aren't going to lie down on Obamacare. We hate Obamacare. We want it gone. We will never stop trying to get rid of it. Are Democrats ever going to stop trying to get the things they want, just because they failed in the past? Hillarycare was destroyed in the 90s, did that stop them from trying again with Obamacare? The terms offered by the republican house are binary: 0 : Defund obamacare 1 : Have no government funding bill When defunding was rejected, Republicans asked for a delay. Why didn't Democrats offered a counter-proposal to that? So no, the republicans have not offered negotiations. The terms haven't changed. The terms haven't changed because the Democrats haven't changed their terms. Republicans asked for defunding, Democrats rejected it. Republicans asked for a delay. Democrats rejected it. They didn't offer a counter-proposal, they've just said that all they will take is a 100% clean CR. What is something of equal value that the democrats can ask for in exchange for the inevitable destruction of the ACA?
Maybe they could ask for, uh... um... A seat at the table. Nice seats. And lemonade!
But really, there's clearly no reason to believe that "negotiation" is the proper reaction to a political antagonist that has gotten the sudden (I mean strategic) urge to undo a law on ideological grounds. Note the timing: NOW is when the law is about to change the lives of a good percentage of people who otherwise wouldn't have access to healthcare (e.g., the marketplaces). This clearly isn't about "trimming fat" or any other such innocuous invitation to managing government debt.
One possible explanation is that the GOP wants to prevent a more permanent acceptance of the law in the public imagination. Many "red" states have already succeeded with local laws that reject Medicaid expansion -- and Medicaid of any kind for poverty-level citizens -- and turn down federal grants to that end. Or perhaps we should just take them at their word that this insanity isn't even about Obamacare, but about saving face:
+ Show Spoiler +“This is not just about Obamacare anymore,” centrist Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., said.
“We’re not going to be disrespected,” conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”
|
I'm going on the wild thought that if the Republicans can't get rid of the ACA, they are trying to make it self destruct by taking down parts of it that are required to work. Thus proactively meeting their prophecy that the ACA was doomed to fail.
|
Hm... i think i found the perfect guy for the next presidential candidate of the reps. And luckily he also just got jobless, so i'm sure he would take that job. He fulfills all requirements the reps could ever have:
- white
- male
- oldaged
- multimillionaire
- political insanity
- loves the spotlight and love to talk about how he is the greatest of all time and how he is helping ppl (by filling his own pockets)
- victimizes himself when things go bad
- laughed at by all neighboring countries (but at the same time, everyone is scared how such a person can hold power)
- any citizen leaving the countries asked about him strictly denies to have ever supported or even voted for him
- still, and no matter what he does, always keeping a surprisingly high support in public polls
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-HfZ-4gF3yRQ/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAADqc/jNen2JtcxO8/s120-c/photo.jpg) only difference in his campaign would be, that the wife praising her husband would be replaced by 4-5 girls in bikinis - but combined they would have about the same age as an to be expected wife, so almost no one will notice
|
So, Superfan was banned because mods decided to "look into" him as a result of his political postings. Welp, I guess I'm going to steer clear of posting any thoughts on anything. I guess you guys are left to your like-minded circle jerk here and never learn from anyone else with a different view point. Not that that ever actually happens by anyone in these forums, anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
