Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Myth of GOP Obstructionism

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 12:03:22 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
Democratic Party elites and their media puppets have for the past few years peddled the lie that the present GOP is "obstructionist", and more so than ever before. This would be laughable if this lie didn't actually hurt the GOP's chances of winning and holding seats in Congress.
So I'll talk for a bit on this lie and, hopefully, expose it for what it is:

First, let's look at the 2013 Government Shutdown, which is often cited by leftists as an example of GOP obstructionism.
Here's the facts:
During the 113th congress, which lasted from January 2013 to January 2015, the Democrats controlled the Senate while the Republicans controlled the House.
At the end of 2013, it was time for Congress to pass a bill that would fund the government through Fiscal Year 2014. On September 10, the GOP-controlled House passed the "Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014". This was a bill which would fund the government through 2014 but would not permit any funding for provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, AKA "Obamacare". From there the bill was passed on to the Senate.
On September 27, the Senate voted to remove this one amendment from the bill which pertained to the PPACA, sending the bill back to the House. Senate leader Harry Reid then announced that the Senate would not accept any further modifications to the bill.
The House responded by making two modifications to the bill: first, that funding for the PPACA would be delayed for one year; second, that a 2.3% tax on medical devices be repealed.
Finally, the bill was sent back to the Senate, which refused to accept the bill after these two modifications.
And so, on October 1 the 2013 Government shutdown began. It eventually ended whenever the GOP and the Democrats agreed to sign a bill which funded the government. The only concession that the Senate offered the House was "stricter income verification rules for citizens accessing the health insurance exchanges".

In short: the GOP was initially unwilling to pass a funding bill which also funded the PPACA (the most radical healthcare reform program since the 1960s), and the Democrats refused to fund the government unless the PPACA would also be funded. The GOP then offered a middle ground, and the Democrats rejected it. In the end the "compromise" was full funding for the PPACA with very few concessions to the GOP.
I think it's also fair to say that, in this instance, the GOP was no more obstructionist than the Democrats were. In fact, the GOP was probably more fair and willing to compromise during the events leading up to and concluding the 2013 Government Shutdown.

Okay, so what about the refusal of the GOP-controlled congress to affirm Merrick Garland for Supreme Court justice? Surely that's a sign of "unprecedented GOP obstructionism", right?
Well, we must keep in mind that Obama has already appointed two Supreme Court justices. The first was Sonia Sotomayer, who believes that people have a "legal entitlement to contraceptive coverage" from their employers in private businesses. The other, Elena Kagan, is a moderate Democrat. Both were appointed during the 111th congress, during which the Democrats controlled both houses. They both replaced liberal justices, which simply meant that the former ideological composition of the Supreme Court was upheld.
Justice Scalia, however, was a conservative. Merrick Garland is supposedly a moderate liberal, but this doesn't mean much whenever the guy he replaced was right-leaning. In short, the nomination of anyone other than a right-leaning judge will shift the court further to the Left. Furthermore, Justices often serve for life, meaning that this leftward shift in the court could last for 30-50 years. Even with right-leaning members in the Court Roe vs Wade has been upheld for the past 43 years, and Obergefell v. Hodges happened last year. A lot of conservatives are rightfully uneasy at the prospect of the Court somehow becoming even more liberal.
Of course the GOP would block this nomination; if the Democrats were in a similar position they would too, as they almost assuredly would've done with justice John Roberts in 2005 had they not been the minority in both houses. I even found this nice article about him:
http://www.democrats.com...
And let's not forget, of course, that the Democrats in the Senate blocked Washington D.C. Court of Appeals justice Janice Rogers Brown from being nominated for nearly two years from 2003 to 2005.

But how about the GOP-controlled comgress's normal, everyday track record? Don't they get nothing done?
Well, no. All congresses, regardless of which party is in control, will pass budgets to keep the government operating each year. Whenever the essentials are covered, the rest is optional.
Republican philosophy emphasises economic libertarianism, meaning that in congress they would be reluctant to propose, much less pass, bills calling for new regulations on the economy. Or in other words, "He governs best who governs least."
Whenever Democrats in congress forward bills which are contrary to the ideology of the Republican majority, it should be expected that they will strike these bills down, and proposing such bills many times will simply result in these bills being struck down many times, as would be the case if Republicans tried such a thing in a Democrat majority Congress. For this reason, pointing to the raw numbers does not an obstructionist GOP congress make.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 12:26:34 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 12:04:17 AM, YYW wrote:
Every aspect of this post is misguided.

Are you claiming to have read it all in 55 seconds at the most?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 12:30:28 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
"In short: the GOP was initially unwilling to pass a funding bill which also funded the PPACA (the most radical healthcare reform program since the 1960s), and the Democrats refused to fund the government unless the PPACA would also be funded. The GOP then offered a middle ground, and the Democrats rejected it. In the end the "compromise" was full funding for the PPACA with very few concessions to the GOP.

I think it's also fair to say that, in this instance, the GOP was no more obstructionist than the Democrats were. In fact, the GOP was probably more fair and willing to compromise during the events leading up to and concluding the 2013 Government Shutdown."

I don't see how shutting down the government to prevent a piece of legislation from receiving funding is equivalent to insisting that obstructionists not get their way.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 12:31:29 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 12:26:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/8/2016 12:04:17 AM, YYW wrote:
Every aspect of this post is misguided.

Are you claiming to have read it all in 55 seconds at the most?
He'll literally say something to that effect towards literally anything except unequivocal support of Hillary.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 12:38:47 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 12:04:17 AM, YYW wrote:
Every aspect of this post is misguided.

Correct.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 1:50:06 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 12:26:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/8/2016 12:04:17 AM, YYW wrote:
Every aspect of this post is misguided.

Are you claiming to have read it all in 55 seconds at the most?

Eh, 51 or 52. Nothing special or complicated here.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 3:15:55 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 2:58:14 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Wow, this totally changed my view on the matter.

For real, or are you being sarcastic?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 3:32:08 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 12:30:28 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
"In short: the GOP was initially unwilling to pass a funding bill which also funded the PPACA (the most radical healthcare reform program since the 1960s), and the Democrats refused to fund the government unless the PPACA would also be funded. The GOP then offered a middle ground, and the Democrats rejected it. In the end the "compromise" was full funding for the PPACA with very few concessions to the GOP.

I think it's also fair to say that, in this instance, the GOP was no more obstructionist than the Democrats were. In fact, the GOP was probably more fair and willing to compromise during the events leading up to and concluding the 2013 Government Shutdown."

I don't see how shutting down the government to prevent a piece of legislation from receiving funding is equivalent to insisting that obstructionists not get their way.

The opposite could be said: The GOP-controlled House put forward a bill to fund the government, with the only catch being that none of that money go into funding the PPACA, and the Democrat-controlled Senate, demanding that the PPACA be funded, shut down the government.
You see? It's just a pointless framing game. The fact is, both wanted it to be a certain way, neither one was willing to accept a funding bill in which they didn't get their way on the PPACA, and both were willing to let the government shut down rather than concede to the other side.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Bennett91
Posts: 4,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 3:55:13 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 12:03:22 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Democratic Party elites and their media puppets have for the past few years peddled the lie that the present GOP is "obstructionist", and more so than ever before. This would be laughable if this lie didn't actually hurt the GOP's chances of winning and holding seats in Congress.
So I'll talk for a bit on this lie and, hopefully, expose it for what it is:

First, let's look at the 2013 Government Shutdown, which is often cited by leftists as an example of GOP obstructionism.
Here's the facts:
During the 113th congress, which lasted from January 2013 to January 2015, the Democrats controlled the Senate while the Republicans controlled the House.
At the end of 2013, it was time for Congress to pass a bill that would fund the government through Fiscal Year 2014. On September 10, the GOP-controlled House passed the "Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014". This was a bill which would fund the government through 2014 but would not permit any funding for provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, AKA "Obamacare". From there the bill was passed on to the Senate.
On September 27, the Senate voted to remove this one amendment from the bill which pertained to the PPACA, sending the bill back to the House. Senate leader Harry Reid then announced that the Senate would not accept any further modifications to the bill.
The House responded by making two modifications to the bill: first, that funding for the PPACA would be delayed for one year; second, that a 2.3% tax on medical devices be repealed.
Finally, the bill was sent back to the Senate, which refused to accept the bill after these two modifications.
And so, on October 1 the 2013 Government shutdown began. It eventually ended whenever the GOP and the Democrats agreed to sign a bill which funded the government. The only concession that the Senate offered the House was "stricter income verification rules for citizens accessing the health insurance exchanges".

Seeing how the GOP knew trying to defund the ACA was a non starter, and the so called "compromise" of delay and tax repeal wasn't a compromise at all, and Ted Cruz's filibuster caused the crisis that his own GOP party members criticized him for [http://www.politico.com...] - it's safe to say the shut down was GOP political theater - putting the entire nation on hold to damage the LEGALLY passed ACA. After trying to repeal it over 50 times, this was a ploy by Tea Party fools as another attempt to compromise the integrity of the ACA - not compromise with Dems to craft a better bill.

Okay, so what about the refusal of the GOP-controlled congress to affirm Merrick Garland for Supreme Court justice? Surely that's a sign of "unprecedented GOP obstructionism", right?

Even if I accept the argument that 2 appointments is enough, your other arguments fail. The Constitution does not mandate that ideological justices be replaced with people of the same ideology. You only want a conservative on the bench because they represent your misguided views. Having ideological disagreements is no excuse to ignore their constitutional duty - and if you expect a Democrat to nominate a conservative when conservatives won't even consider a moderate you're dreaming. They openly admit even if Clinton wins they won't consider a new appointment. Ted Cruz tells everyone there's precedent for less than 9 justice which is irrelevant garbage.

Also, and this is what cracks me up, if you don't like the gay marriage ruling you should blame Reagan, he appointed Kennedy who affirmed the case. So arguing that Presidents are incapable of appointing impartial justices, as the current GOP is doing by refusing to even hold hearings on any future Democratic appointment, is a clear case of misguided obstructionism.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 4:00:59 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 3:15:55 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/8/2016 2:58:14 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Wow, this totally changed my view on the matter.

For real, or are you being sarcastic?

For real. I'd previously bought into the narrative where Ted Cruz shut down the government out of stubbornness. I now see that, while the Republicans are no less to blame for the fiasco, it was the Democrats who were being stubborn and "holding the government to ransom". Thanks, Obama.
U.n
Posts: 214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 4:09:18 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
The beauty of voting Republican is that it's all about belief.

I believe it therefore it's true. Facts need not apply.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 4:10:08 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 4:00:59 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 11/8/2016 3:15:55 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/8/2016 2:58:14 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Wow, this totally changed my view on the matter.

For real, or are you being sarcastic?

For real. I'd previously bought into the narrative where Ted Cruz shut down the government out of stubbornness. I now see that, while the Republicans are no less to blame for the fiasco, it was the Democrats who were being stubborn and "holding the government to ransom". Thanks, Obama.

Right. The guys that passes what they knew would NOT pass the upper house OR the WH. Guy guys that were totally reasonable but NOT funding a bill that had been passes. No blame there for being obstructionists right? It's the fu**Ing definition of obstruction.

They held their breath like 3yos, lost and now want to rewrite the history.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 4:23:14 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 4:00:59 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 11/8/2016 3:15:55 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/8/2016 2:58:14 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Wow, this totally changed my view on the matter.

For real, or are you being sarcastic?

For real. I'd previously bought into the narrative where Ted Cruz shut down the government out of stubbornness. I now see that, while the Republicans are no less to blame for the fiasco, it was the Democrats who were being stubborn and "holding the government to ransom". Thanks, Obama.

So you think there's an equal share of blame when the GOP had no right to try to defund the ACA in the first place?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 4:27:13 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 3:55:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/8/2016 12:03:22 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Democratic Party elites and their media puppets have for the past few years peddled the lie that the present GOP is "obstructionist", and more so than ever before. This would be laughable if this lie didn't actually hurt the GOP's chances of winning and holding seats in Congress.
So I'll talk for a bit on this lie and, hopefully, expose it for what it is:

First, let's look at the 2013 Government Shutdown, which is often cited by leftists as an example of GOP obstructionism.
Here's the facts:
During the 113th congress, which lasted from January 2013 to January 2015, the Democrats controlled the Senate while the Republicans controlled the House.
At the end of 2013, it was time for Congress to pass a bill that would fund the government through Fiscal Year 2014. On September 10, the GOP-controlled House passed the "Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014". This was a bill which would fund the government through 2014 but would not permit any funding for provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, AKA "Obamacare". From there the bill was passed on to the Senate.
On September 27, the Senate voted to remove this one amendment from the bill which pertained to the PPACA, sending the bill back to the House. Senate leader Harry Reid then announced that the Senate would not accept any further modifications to the bill.
The House responded by making two modifications to the bill: first, that funding for the PPACA would be delayed for one year; second, that a 2.3% tax on medical devices be repealed.
Finally, the bill was sent back to the Senate, which refused to accept the bill after these two modifications.
And so, on October 1 the 2013 Government shutdown began. It eventually ended whenever the GOP and the Democrats agreed to sign a bill which funded the government. The only concession that the Senate offered the House was "stricter income verification rules for citizens accessing the health insurance exchanges".

Seeing how the GOP knew trying to defund the ACA was a non starter, and the so called "compromise" of delay and tax repeal wasn't a compromise at all, and Ted Cruz's filibuster caused the crisis that his own GOP party members criticized him for [http://www.politico.com...] - it's safe to say the shut down was GOP political theater - putting the entire nation on hold to damage the LEGALLY passed ACA. After trying to repeal it over 50 times, this was a ploy by Tea Party fools as another attempt to compromise the integrity of the ACA - not compromise with Dems to craft a better bill.

It was not a "non-starter". All that was guaranteed was that the Democrats would put up some form of struggle. At the same time, though, Democrats knew that Republicans would put up a struggle if they passed the PPACA, so simply blaming it on the instigator doesn't really work, because then you'd have to debate where this started.

Okay, so what about the refusal of the GOP-controlled congress to affirm Merrick Garland for Supreme Court justice? Surely that's a sign of "unprecedented GOP obstructionism", right?

Even if I accept the argument that 2 appointments is enough, your other arguments fail. The Constitution does not mandate that ideological justices be replaced with people of the same ideology. You only want a conservative on the bench because they represent your misguided views. Having ideological disagreements is no excuse to ignore their constitutional duty - and if you expect a Democrat to nominate a conservative when conservatives won't even consider a moderate you're dreaming. They openly admit even if Clinton wins they won't consider a new appointment. Ted Cruz tells everyone there's precedent for less than 9 justice which is irrelevant garbage.

The constitution does not mandate that the Court must always be filled. Rather, the President and Congress have the power to fill it, and I'm sure that the people who established the rules for the Supreme Court knew that there'd be struggles over justice nominations which would lead to periods of seat vacancies.
And by the way, in 1801 there were 5 Supreme Court justices. The number isn't so important as long as there's more than one and the number of justices is odd, so as to prevent ties.

Also, and this is what cracks me up, if you don't like the gay marriage ruling you should blame Reagan, he appointed Kennedy who affirmed the case. So arguing that Presidents are incapable of appointing impartial justices, as the current GOP is doing by refusing to even hold hearings on any future Democratic appointment, is a clear case of misguided obstructionism.

When Obama sought to appoint a leftist to take a seat which was held by a rightist, and given the fact that they had a solid majority in both houses, it's only natural that the GOP would resist. It could be argued that Obama is the real obstructionist.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 4:30:40 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
I see threads like this, and think "Ah, yes. This must have been why the United States was originally a Republic and not a Democracy."
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 4:37:10 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 4:30:40 AM, YYW wrote:
I see threads like this, and think "Ah, yes. This must have been why the United States was originally a Republic and not a Democracy."

I think of a couple things when I see posts like this. One, it is like people didn't live through these events, like we didn't have tvs or internet access, we did not witness it live. Two, the ever so tough GOP never owns their disasters. Sorry it sucked so hard for you GOP, but you called the play, it was a failure. Stop crying like children at every loss.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 4:42:11 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 4:37:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:30:40 AM, YYW wrote:
I see threads like this, and think "Ah, yes. This must have been why the United States was originally a Republic and not a Democracy."

I think of a couple things when I see posts like this. One, it is like people didn't live through these events, like we didn't have tvs or internet access, we did not witness it live. Two, the ever so tough GOP never owns their disasters. Sorry it sucked so hard for you GOP, but you called the play, it was a failure. Stop crying like children at every loss.

The GOP has been playing out of the same handbook since the 90s: obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. It's their stated method of resistance to anything they don't like and they're willing to risk the full faith and credit of the US economy to do it. They're as stupid as they are irresponsible. But, that's what divides democrats and republicans. We get sh1t done, and they f$ck it up.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 4:46:07 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 4:37:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:30:40 AM, YYW wrote:
I see threads like this, and think "Ah, yes. This must have been why the United States was originally a Republic and not a Democracy."

I think of a couple things when I see posts like this. One, it is like people didn't live through these events, like we didn't have tvs or internet access, we did not witness it live. Two, the ever so tough GOP never owns their disasters. Sorry it sucked so hard for you GOP, but you called the play, it was a failure. Stop crying like children at every loss.

Yup, just like the Democrats refuse to live up to passing of a piece of legislation and standing by it without willing to compromise on it one inch, which would've inevitably caused something like a shutdown. Holy angelic Democrats, obstructionist GOP. Yup, we're not gonna let those pesky facts get in the way here.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Bennett91
Posts: 4,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 4:47:06 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 4:27:13 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/8/2016 3:55:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/8/2016 12:03:22 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Democratic Party elites and their media puppets have for the past few years peddled the lie that the present GOP is "obstructionist", and more so than ever before. This would be laughable if this lie didn't actually hurt the GOP's chances of winning and holding seats in Congress.
So I'll talk for a bit on this lie and, hopefully, expose it for what it is:

First, let's look at the 2013 Government Shutdown, which is often cited by leftists as an example of GOP obstructionism.
Here's the facts:
During the 113th congress, which lasted from January 2013 to January 2015, the Democrats controlled the Senate while the Republicans controlled the House.
At the end of 2013, it was time for Congress to pass a bill that would fund the government through Fiscal Year 2014. On September 10, the GOP-controlled House passed the "Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014". This was a bill which would fund the government through 2014 but would not permit any funding for provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, AKA "Obamacare". From there the bill was passed on to the Senate.
On September 27, the Senate voted to remove this one amendment from the bill which pertained to the PPACA, sending the bill back to the House. Senate leader Harry Reid then announced that the Senate would not accept any further modifications to the bill.
The House responded by making two modifications to the bill: first, that funding for the PPACA would be delayed for one year; second, that a 2.3% tax on medical devices be repealed.
Finally, the bill was sent back to the Senate, which refused to accept the bill after these two modifications.
And so, on October 1 the 2013 Government shutdown began. It eventually ended whenever the GOP and the Democrats agreed to sign a bill which funded the government. The only concession that the Senate offered the House was "stricter income verification rules for citizens accessing the health insurance exchanges".

Seeing how the GOP knew trying to defund the ACA was a non starter, and the so called "compromise" of delay and tax repeal wasn't a compromise at all, and Ted Cruz's filibuster caused the crisis that his own GOP party members criticized him for [http://www.politico.com...] - it's safe to say the shut down was GOP political theater - putting the entire nation on hold to damage the LEGALLY passed ACA. After trying to repeal it over 50 times, this was a ploy by Tea Party fools as another attempt to compromise the integrity of the ACA - not compromise with Dems to craft a better bill.

It was not a "non-starter". All that was guaranteed was that the Democrats would put up some form of struggle. At the same time, though, Democrats knew that Republicans would put up a struggle if they passed the PPACA, so simply blaming it on the instigator doesn't really work, because then you'd have to debate where this started.

It was a non starter. Trying to defund the entire ACA which was legally passed was completely off the table and they knew it. And you admit the GOP started it, and yes it is apt to blame the instigator of a crisis for said crisis. It started with the GOP. The Dems legally passed the ACA. The GOP tried to repeal in attempts that go into double digits and failed each time. So they tried to hold the entire nation hostage as an attempt. It's pretty frigging obvious obstruction.

Here's a brief conversations of how I think you interpret events.

Dems: Hey lets fund the entire government.
GOP: How about we fund everything except the parts we don't like
Dems: No
GOP: Ok how about we delay the parts we don't like so we have more chances to destroy it?
Dems: No
GOP: Stop obstructing! It's your fault the government isn't being funded!

Okay, so what about the refusal of the GOP-controlled congress to affirm Merrick Garland for Supreme Court justice? Surely that's a sign of "unprecedented GOP obstructionism", right?

Even if I accept the argument that 2 appointments is enough, your other arguments fail. The Constitution does not mandate that ideological justices be replaced with people of the same ideology. You only want a conservative on the bench because they represent your misguided views. Having ideological disagreements is no excuse to ignore their constitutional duty - and if you expect a Democrat to nominate a conservative when conservatives won't even consider a moderate you're dreaming. They openly admit even if Clinton wins they won't consider a new appointment. Ted Cruz tells everyone there's precedent for less than 9 justice which is irrelevant garbage.

The constitution does not mandate that the Court must always be filled. Rather, the President and Congress have the power to fill it, and I'm sure that the people who established the rules for the Supreme Court knew that there'd be struggles over justice nominations which would lead to periods of seat vacancies.
And by the way, in 1801 there were 5 Supreme Court justices. The number isn't so important as long as there's more than one and the number of justices is odd, so as to prevent ties.

Wow 215 years ago is the precedent you call upon? Irrelevant garbage. So you agree that 8 justices (an even number) is a problem and that a new justice needs to be appointed?

Also, and this is what cracks me up, if you don't like the gay marriage ruling you should blame Reagan, he appointed Kennedy who affirmed the case. So arguing that Presidents are incapable of appointing impartial justices, as the current GOP is doing by refusing to even hold hearings on any future Democratic appointment, is a clear case of misguided obstructionism.

When Obama sought to appoint a leftist to take a seat which was held by a rightist, and given the fact that they had a solid majority in both houses, it's only natural that the GOP would resist. It could be argued that Obama is the real obstructionist.

What they're doing isn't resistance. They won't even listen to any potential justice, that's obstructionism. They could at least interview the guy, or at least not threaten to NEVER address a future appointment by Clinton, but that isn't the case.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 4:59:31 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 4:46:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:37:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:30:40 AM, YYW wrote:
I see threads like this, and think "Ah, yes. This must have been why the United States was originally a Republic and not a Democracy."

I think of a couple things when I see posts like this. One, it is like people didn't live through these events, like we didn't have tvs or internet access, we did not witness it live. Two, the ever so tough GOP never owns their disasters. Sorry it sucked so hard for you GOP, but you called the play, it was a failure. Stop crying like children at every loss.

Yup, just like the Democrats refuse to live up to passing of a piece of legislation and standing by it without willing to compromise on it one inch, which would've inevitably caused something like a shutdown. Holy angelic Democrats, obstructionist GOP. Yup, we're not gonna let those pesky facts get in the way here.

Compromise? You mean change a bill to suit the narrow focus of 1/3 of the government. How about this. How about the GOP stops playing a game, one they knew they would lose, and stop playing victim when they lose.

The democrats were under NO obligation to change a dam thing on a bill that had passes. They were not uncooperative when they told them to fu*k off. The GOP, and the people that support them, are not the only Americans. Stop pretending that every American, the majority often, are not American enough. We, us liberals, sent a president, a majority in the senate, and that is enough. Want compromise? Start by growing the hell up and realizing that most Americans don't want what you are selling.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 5:02:37 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 4:47:06 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:27:13 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/8/2016 3:55:13 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/8/2016 12:03:22 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Democratic Party elites and their media puppets have for the past few years peddled the lie that the present GOP is "obstructionist", and more so than ever before. This would be laughable if this lie didn't actually hurt the GOP's chances of winning and holding seats in Congress.
So I'll talk for a bit on this lie and, hopefully, expose it for what it is:

First, let's look at the 2013 Government Shutdown, which is often cited by leftists as an example of GOP obstructionism.
Here's the facts:
During the 113th congress, which lasted from January 2013 to January 2015, the Democrats controlled the Senate while the Republicans controlled the House.
At the end of 2013, it was time for Congress to pass a bill that would fund the government through Fiscal Year 2014. On September 10, the GOP-controlled House passed the "Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014". This was a bill which would fund the government through 2014 but would not permit any funding for provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, AKA "Obamacare". From there the bill was passed on to the Senate.
On September 27, the Senate voted to remove this one amendment from the bill which pertained to the PPACA, sending the bill back to the House. Senate leader Harry Reid then announced that the Senate would not accept any further modifications to the bill.
The House responded by making two modifications to the bill: first, that funding for the PPACA would be delayed for one year; second, that a 2.3% tax on medical devices be repealed.
Finally, the bill was sent back to the Senate, which refused to accept the bill after these two modifications.
And so, on October 1 the 2013 Government shutdown began. It eventually ended whenever the GOP and the Democrats agreed to sign a bill which funded the government. The only concession that the Senate offered the House was "stricter income verification rules for citizens accessing the health insurance exchanges".

Seeing how the GOP knew trying to defund the ACA was a non starter, and the so called "compromise" of delay and tax repeal wasn't a compromise at all, and Ted Cruz's filibuster caused the crisis that his own GOP party members criticized him for [http://www.politico.com...] - it's safe to say the shut down was GOP political theater - putting the entire nation on hold to damage the LEGALLY passed ACA. After trying to repeal it over 50 times, this was a ploy by Tea Party fools as another attempt to compromise the integrity of the ACA - not compromise with Dems to craft a better bill.

It was not a "non-starter". All that was guaranteed was that the Democrats would put up some form of struggle. At the same time, though, Democrats knew that Republicans would put up a struggle if they passed the PPACA, so simply blaming it on the instigator doesn't really work, because then you'd have to debate where this started.

It was a non starter. Trying to defund the entire ACA which was legally passed was completely off the table and they knew it. And you admit the GOP started it, and yes it is apt to blame the instigator of a crisis for said crisis. It started with the GOP. The Dems legally passed the ACA. The GOP tried to repeal in attempts that go into double digits and failed each time. So they tried to hold the entire nation hostage as an attempt. It's pretty frigging obvious obstruction.

Here's a brief conversations of how I think you interpret events.

Dems: Hey lets fund the entire government.
GOP: How about we fund everything except the parts we don't like
Dems: No
GOP: Ok how about we delay the parts we don't like so we have more chances to destroy it?
Dems: No
GOP: Stop obstructing! It's your fault the government isn't being funded!

Okay, so what about the refusal of the GOP-controlled congress to affirm Merrick Garland for Supreme Court justice? Surely that's a sign of "unprecedented GOP obstructionism", right?

Even if I accept the argument that 2 appointments is enough, your other arguments fail. The Constitution does not mandate that ideological justices be replaced with people of the same ideology. You only want a conservative on the bench because they represent your misguided views. Having ideological disagreements is no excuse to ignore their constitutional duty - and if you expect a Democrat to nominate a conservative when conservatives won't even consider a moderate you're dreaming. They openly admit even if Clinton wins they won't consider a new appointment. Ted Cruz tells everyone there's precedent for less than 9 justice which is irrelevant garbage.

The constitution does not mandate that the Court must always be filled. Rather, the President and Congress have the power to fill it, and I'm sure that the people who established the rules for the Supreme Court knew that there'd be struggles over justice nominations which would lead to periods of seat vacancies.
And by the way, in 1801 there were 5 Supreme Court justices. The number isn't so important as long as there's more than one and the number of justices is odd, so as to prevent ties.

Wow 215 years ago is the precedent you call upon? Irrelevant garbage. So you agree that 8 justices (an even number) is a problem and that a new justice needs to be appointed?

Also, and this is what cracks me up, if you don't like the gay marriage ruling you should blame Reagan, he appointed Kennedy who affirmed the case. So arguing that Presidents are incapable of appointing impartial justices, as the current GOP is doing by refusing to even hold hearings on any future Democratic appointment, is a clear case of misguided obstructionism.

When Obama sought to appoint a leftist to take a seat which was held by a rightist, and given the fact that they had a solid majority in both houses, it's only natural that the GOP would resist. It could be argued that Obama is the real obstructionist.

What they're doing isn't resistance. They won't even listen to any potential justice, that's obstructionism. They could at least interview the guy, or at least not threaten to NEVER address a future appointment by Clinton, but that isn't the case.

All good!
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,642
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 5:07:40 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 4:42:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:37:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:30:40 AM, YYW wrote:
I see threads like this, and think "Ah, yes. This must have been why the United States was originally a Republic and not a Democracy."

I think of a couple things when I see posts like this. One, it is like people didn't live through these events, like we didn't have tvs or internet access, we did not witness it live. Two, the ever so tough GOP never owns their disasters. Sorry it sucked so hard for you GOP, but you called the play, it was a failure. Stop crying like children at every loss.

The GOP has been playing out of the same handbook since the 90s: obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. It's their stated method of resistance to anything they don't like and they're willing to risk the full faith and credit of the US economy to do it. They're as stupid as they are irresponsible. But, that's what divides democrats and republicans. We get sh1t done, and they f$ck it up.

You just ignored the OP...
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 5:10:07 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 5:07:40 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:42:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:37:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:30:40 AM, YYW wrote:
I see threads like this, and think "Ah, yes. This must have been why the United States was originally a Republic and not a Democracy."

I think of a couple things when I see posts like this. One, it is like people didn't live through these events, like we didn't have tvs or internet access, we did not witness it live. Two, the ever so tough GOP never owns their disasters. Sorry it sucked so hard for you GOP, but you called the play, it was a failure. Stop crying like children at every loss.

The GOP has been playing out of the same handbook since the 90s: obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. It's their stated method of resistance to anything they don't like and they're willing to risk the full faith and credit of the US economy to do it. They're as stupid as they are irresponsible. But, that's what divides democrats and republicans. We get sh1t done, and they f$ck it up.

You just ignored the OP...

It was stupid, so yes.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 5:16:14 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 4:59:31 AM, TBR wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:46:07 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:37:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:30:40 AM, YYW wrote:
I see threads like this, and think "Ah, yes. This must have been why the United States was originally a Republic and not a Democracy."

I think of a couple things when I see posts like this. One, it is like people didn't live through these events, like we didn't have tvs or internet access, we did not witness it live. Two, the ever so tough GOP never owns their disasters. Sorry it sucked so hard for you GOP, but you called the play, it was a failure. Stop crying like children at every loss.

Yup, just like the Democrats refuse to live up to passing of a piece of legislation and standing by it without willing to compromise on it one inch, which would've inevitably caused something like a shutdown. Holy angelic Democrats, obstructionist GOP. Yup, we're not gonna let those pesky facts get in the way here.

Compromise? You mean change a bill to suit the narrow focus of 1/3 of the government. How about this. How about the GOP stops playing a game, one they knew they would lose, and stop playing victim when they lose.

The democrats were under NO obligation to change a dam thing on a bill that had passes. They were not uncooperative when they told them to fu*k off. The GOP, and the people that support them, are not the only Americans. Stop pretending that every American, the majority often, are not American enough. We, us liberals, sent a president, a majority in the senate, and that is enough. Want compromise? Start by growing the hell up and realizing that most Americans don't want what you are selling.

Republicans comprise about half of the country. Democrats comprise about half of the country. In 2013, Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans controlled the House. Both have separate visions for America; if one has its way, the other won't. Both are demanding their vision at the expense of the other, and both are being equally selfish in this respect.
Republicans were and are personally affected by the provisions of the PPACA in some way or another, and they have as much a right to repeal the PPACA as the Democrats did to pass it. If the Democrats, in passing the bill, refused to offer any concessions to the other 50% of the country, then they are every last freaking bit as responsible for the shutdown as the Republicans are, if not more. It seems apparent that the Democrats need to "grow up" every bit as much as the Republicans do.
But what I said will make no difference; you've drunk every last drop of the Kool-Aid and sound reason has become foreign to you.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 5:25:50 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 5:10:07 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/8/2016 5:07:40 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:42:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:37:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 11/8/2016 4:30:40 AM, YYW wrote:
I see threads like this, and think "Ah, yes. This must have been why the United States was originally a Republic and not a Democracy."

I think of a couple things when I see posts like this. One, it is like people didn't live through these events, like we didn't have tvs or internet access, we did not witness it live. Two, the ever so tough GOP never owns their disasters. Sorry it sucked so hard for you GOP, but you called the play, it was a failure. Stop crying like children at every loss.

The GOP has been playing out of the same handbook since the 90s: obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. It's their stated method of resistance to anything they don't like and they're willing to risk the full faith and credit of the US economy to do it. They're as stupid as they are irresponsible. But, that's what divides democrats and republicans. We get sh1t done, and they f$ck it up.

You just ignored the OP...

It was stupid, so yes.

https://exfontibus.files.wordpress.com...
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Bennett91
Posts: 4,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 5:45:42 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 5:16:14 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Republicans comprise about half of the country. Democrats comprise about half of the country. In 2013, Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans controlled the House. Both have separate visions for America; if one has its way, the other won't. Both are demanding their vision at the expense of the other, and both are being equally selfish in this respect.

Did the Democrats try to defund a part of the government they didn't like? No? Then they are not equal.

Republicans were and are personally affected by the provisions of the PPACA in some way or another, and they have as much a right to repeal the PPACA as the Democrats did to pass it.

And Democrats have the right to keep it as is because it also effects them. Cut the the BS. If the GOP wanted to repeal then they'd do it as an ACT OF LEGISLATION not hold the entire nation hostage with the budget. Seriously, get a clue.

If the Democrats, in passing the bill, refused to offer any concessions to the other 50% of the country, then they are every last freaking bit as responsible for the shutdown as the Republicans are, if not more. It seems apparent that the Democrats need to "grow up" every bit as much as the Republicans do.

So when the Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses you pretend that institution represent conservatives just as much as liberals? hahahaha Oh boy I almost want Trump to win and the GOP take both houses just to see how you flip on minority representation.

But what I said will make no difference; you've drunk every last drop of the Kool-Aid and sound reason has become foreign to you.

hhahahaahahahahahahaahahah omg ahahaha
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 5:55:03 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 5:45:42 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/8/2016 5:16:14 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Republicans comprise about half of the country. Democrats comprise about half of the country. In 2013, Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans controlled the House. Both have separate visions for America; if one has its way, the other won't. Both are demanding their vision at the expense of the other, and both are being equally selfish in this respect.

Did the Democrats try to defund a part of the government they didn't like? No? Then they are not equal.

It could be said just as well that the Democrats put a pet provision in the government and wouldn't fund any of it without that.

Republicans were and are personally affected by the provisions of the PPACA in some way or another, and they have as much a right to repeal the PPACA as the Democrats did to pass it.

And Democrats have the right to keep it as is because it also effects them. Cut the the BS. If the GOP wanted to repeal then they'd do it as an ACT OF LEGISLATION not hold the entire nation hostage with the budget. Seriously, get a clue.

Oh yes, totally the GOP's fault yup. At the time the GOP did not control both houses and President Obama would've vetoed anything other than a supermajority vote to repeal the PPACA. At the time they would have to settle with stripping government funding for the Act.

If the Democrats, in passing the bill, refused to offer any concessions to the other 50% of the country, then they are every last freaking bit as responsible for the shutdown as the Republicans are, if not more. It seems apparent that the Democrats need to "grow up" every bit as much as the Republicans do.

So when the Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses you pretend that institution represent conservatives just as much as liberals? hahahaha Oh boy I almost want Trump to win and the GOP take both houses just to see how you flip on minority representation.

Even if Democrats controlled the Senate and the Presidency whereas the Republicans only controlled the House, it didn't change the fact that Republicans comprise about half of the country. Even if they were to be a minority, they have a fundamental right to voice their opinions and try to elect who they want to Congress, and their representatives have the right to try and enact the kind of legislation that they want.
The GOP-controlled House had absolutely every right to do what they did, and it was not one iota more obstructionist than what the Dems did.

But what I said will make no difference; you've drunk every last drop of the Kool-Aid and sound reason has become foreign to you.

hhahahaahahahahahahaahahah omg ahahaha

That's right, just keep on sipping. No worries here.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2016 5:57:56 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
At 11/8/2016 5:45:42 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/8/2016 5:16:14 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Republicans comprise about half of the country. Democrats comprise about half of the country. In 2013, Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans controlled the House. Both have separate visions for America; if one has its way, the other won't. Both are demanding their vision at the expense of the other, and both are being equally selfish in this respect.

Did the Democrats try to defund a part of the government they didn't like? No? Then they are not equal.

Republicans were and are personally affected by the provisions of the PPACA in some way or another, and they have as much a right to repeal the PPACA as the Democrats did to pass it.

And Democrats have the right to keep it as is because it also effects them. Cut the the BS. If the GOP wanted to repeal then they'd do it as an ACT OF LEGISLATION not hold the entire nation hostage with the budget. Seriously, get a clue.

If the Democrats, in passing the bill, refused to offer any concessions to the other 50% of the country, then they are every last freaking bit as responsible for the shutdown as the Republicans are, if not more. It seems apparent that the Democrats need to "grow up" every bit as much as the Republicans do.

So when the Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses you pretend that institution represent conservatives just as much as liberals? hahahaha Oh boy I almost want Trump to win and the GOP take both houses just to see how you flip on minority representation.

I'd like to add that, for a guy who purports to be such a strong believer in majority rule, thou doth protest too much of obstructionism whenever the GOP majority in Congress prevents Democrat bills from passing.

But what I said will make no difference; you've drunk every last drop of the Kool-Aid and sound reason has become foreign to you.

hhahahaahahahahahahaahahah omg ahahaha
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid