What's new
By:

The New Hate?

Sirkickyass said:
. Threatening to shut down the government unless a party votes to repeal its own validly passed laws, laws that you can't get repealed through the normal process because you don't have the votes, is not valid process. It's hostage taking.
Click to expand...

This. If the Republicans want to repeal any existing laws, it's really easy. Win presidency, win 51 Senate seats. What they're doing is unheard of.
 
JimLes said:
This. If the Republicans want to repeal any existing laws, it's really easy. Win presidency, win 51 Senate seats. What they're doing is unheard of.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. It is the same crap that has been going on for years.
 
Stoked said:
No it isn't. It is the same crap that has been going on for years.
Click to expand...


Examples please.

If you can find another instance of a party using not funding the government entirely as leverage to repeal a law they can't repeal through a voting process I'll be very surprised.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Examples please.

If you can find another instance of a party using not funding the government entirely as leverage to repeal a law they can't repeal through a voting process I'll be very surprised.
Click to expand...

I'm talking in a general sense. If you want an exact scenario of this playing out under a republican president I don;t think there is one. Last shutdown was under Clintons Administration.

If Jim meant specifically than he is right.
 
LG:

Obama's health care reforms were the largest issue of both his presidential runs. There is an argument that the economic meltdown of late 2008 sealed the deal for him (I would argue that McCain basically committed campaign suicide that year) but it is undeniable that this is what he ran on and it was his biggest priority coming into office.


This is false equivocation. The Dems already won this fight. They passed the law. They won the court challenge. They won the election where the primary issue was "repeal obamacare." This is not a "will this be the law" fight.

This is entirely a fight about 40 people trying to say that they don't care that they lost all the other battles; they are now willing to shut everything down, take their toys and go home if you will, unless they get their way.

Polling on this issue has been horrendous for them. So they're trying to make it an issue of "the other side won't compromise" and what not. Here's the deal: the votes happened. The compromises occurred when the bill was being drafted. Every instance those 40 people have to be a roadbock is not an opportunity to renegotiate their losses of the past. They need to move on.[/QUOTE]
 
LogGrad98 said:
Obama's health care reforms were the largest issue of both his presidential runs. There is an argument that the economic meltdown of late 2008 sealed the deal for him (I would argue that McCain basically committed campaign suicide that year) but it is undeniable that this is what he ran on and it was his biggest priority coming into office.



This is false equivocation. The Dems already won this fight. They passed the law. They won the court challenge. They won the election where the primary issue was "repeal obamacare." This is not a "will this be the law" fight.

This is entirely a fight about 40 people trying to say that they don't care that they lost all the other battles; they are now willing to shut everything down, take their toys and go home if you will, unless they get their way.

Polling on this issue has been horrendous for them. So they're trying to make it an issue of "the other side won't compromise" and what not. Here's the deal: the votes happened. The compromises occurred when the bill was being drafted. Every instance those 40 people have to be a roadbock is not an opportunity to renegotiate their losses of the past. They need to move on.
Click to expand...

Sirkickyass said:
LG:

Obama's health care reforms were the largest issue of both his presidential runs. There is an argument that the economic meltdown of late 2008 sealed the deal for him (I would argue that McCain basically committed campaign suicide that year) but it is undeniable that this is what he ran on and it was his biggest priority coming into office.


This is false equivocation. The Dems already won this fight. They passed the law. They won the court challenge. They won the election where the primary issue was "repeal obamacare." This is not a "will this be the law" fight.

This is entirely a fight about 40 people trying to say that they don't care that they lost all the other battles; they are now willing to shut everything down, take their toys and go home if you will, unless they get their way.

Polling on this issue has been horrendous for them. So they're trying to make it an issue of "the other side won't compromise" and what not. Here's the deal: the votes happened. The compromises occurred when the bill was being drafted. Every instance those 40 people have to be a roadbock is not an opportunity to renegotiate their losses of the past. They need to move on.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Fixed it. Fair enough. I modded it back.
 
Sirkickyass said:
LG:

Obama's health care reforms were the largest issue of both his presidential runs. There is an argument that the economic meltdown of late 2008 sealed the deal for him (I would argue that McCain basically committed campaign suicide that year) but it is undeniable that this is what he ran on and it was his biggest priority coming into office.


This is false equivocation. The Dems already won this fight. They passed the law. They won the court challenge. They won the election where the primary issue was "repeal obamacare." This is not a "will this be the law" fight.

This is entirely a fight about 40 people trying to say that they don't care that they lost all the other battles; they are now willing to shut everything down, take their toys and go home if you will, unless they get their way.

Polling on this issue has been horrendous for them. So they're trying to make it an issue of "the other side won't compromise" and what not. Here's the deal: the votes happened. The compromises occurred when the bill was being drafted. Every instance those 40 people have to be a roadbock is not an opportunity to renegotiate their losses of the past. They need to move on.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

I agree with most of your points. It has been no secret that is his attempt at a lasting legacy. But I am still of the opinion that Obama will have his way, or else, and the republican will deny him his way, or else.

Also if you get into the history of the law there was a proviso added by a mostly democractic committee essentially forcing everyone to have insurance or pay a penalty. Early iterations which were much more bi-partisan lacked this component. It was when this was challenged by republicans, and the democrats refused to alter it, that the current fights started. That is the basis on which the republicans took it to the supreme court, that it was illegal to force people to participate. The supreme court ruled it was a tax and therefore legal, and Obama quickly changed his position that he would not implement a new tax to fund Obamacare and fully embraced the legality of it being a tax in order to secure the "win". This is also a point when public opinion started to swing against the ACA, but as you said, the fight was already won.

Shenanigans have been going on in this thing on both sides for a long time now, not just in the past few months.
 
Stoked said:
I'm talking in a general sense. If you want an exact scenario of this playing out under a republican president I don;t think there is one. Last shutdown was under Clintons Administration.

If Jim meant specifically than he is right.
Click to expand...

Of course I meant specifically. This isn't your regular back-and-forth. This is a party threatening to shut down the country in order to repeal a law they cannot repeal by normal means. It's ridiculous. You can talk all you want about how this is something both parties are responsible for, but the Democrats have never done this.
 
JimLes said:
Of course I meant specifically. This isn't your regular back-and-forth. This is a party threatening to shut down the country in order to repeal a law they cannot repeal by normal means. It's ridiculous. You can talk all you want about how this is something both parties are responsible for, but the Democrats have never done this.
Click to expand...

If you deeply believe something is morally wrong, how the hell can you compromise? What kind of person does that make you?
 
Stoked said:
Keep in mind that I am in no way comparing the history of these words/terms beucase lets be honest there is no comparison. Having said that here we go...

Is political hate more intense and divisive right now, in this moment in time, than any other hate or "ism" (sexism, racism, religious bigotry...) in America? Is political hate merely being given different names? Such as racism or communism?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think there has always been divisiveness in politics. With the advent of the internet and the ability to rant anonymously without recourse, I think the polarization has intensified and created it's own self fulfilling prophecy.

But to say that the political hate of today is worse than the racism of yesteryear is to ignore reality. You had state sponsored atrocities committed against a group of Americans for quite a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top