• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reid Outlines What Wont be in a Budget Deal

jonny5 said:
They dont have a say. Governing is done by democracy and executive order. Foreign powers can not be elected and can not vote.
Click to expand...

But now.. after Citizens united they have an easy vehicle to influence who gets elected.
 
jonny5 said:
I stand corrected. I was looking only at roll call votes, not unanimous consent votes. Interestingly on May 6, Reid had unanimous consent but withdrew the request because he wanted a Republican to object.



Thats leadership right there. Your point is made though. What now?
Click to expand...

i was looking through this now for days and days... and i agree... it seems ridiculous. Everyone seems to play only games. I still have not fully understood the idea / concept behind that move... do they want to embarrass the GOP, is it just to be on the record with " we were trying"... they talk about withdrawing as something out of respect for the tradition of the Seante, and that they actually would only want to do the conference by regular order. It even says somewhere, the moment someone "requests" to follow regular order, you HAVE to withdraw that request. Ok, but Reid himself standing up to request unanimous consent, while at the same time requesting regular order, and then withdrawing his own request in the same sentence... i don't get it.

If anyone has more knowledge about this process and can explain this in "dummy language", i'd highly appreciate it.
 
NeoVsMatrix said:
i was looking through this now for days and days... and i agree... it seems ridiculous. Everyone seems to play only games. I still have not fully understood the idea / concept behind that move... do they want to embarrass the GOP, is it just to be on the record with " we were trying"... they talk about withdrawing as something out of respect for the tradition of the Seante, and that they actually would only want to do the conference by regular order. It even says somewhere, the moment someone "requests" to follow regular order, you HAVE to withdraw that request. Ok, but Reid himself standing up to request unanimous consent, while at the same time requesting regular order, and then withdrawing his own request in the same sentence... i don't get it.

If anyone has more knowledge about this process and can explain this in "dummy language", i'd highly appreciate it.
Click to expand...

As you say, its political games. Senate Republicans were objecting in order to keep the Senates language of tax increases out of any final result. Reid was objecting to everything in the House budget and playing games with votes. The House didn't even bother to consider the Senate bill. This is where we're at. Two opposite ideologies with no possible compromise.
 
jaeger19 said:
But now.. after Citizens united they have an easy vehicle to influence who gets elected.
Click to expand...

Influence but not control. Unless they are bribing voters, they can not choose how people vote. They can influence all they want, but in the end the voters decide. If they decide based on who gave more money to someone, then that's the voters fault. I don't vote that way, so theres no reason anyone else has to.
 
jonny5 said:
Influence but not control. Unless they are bribing voters, they can not choose how people vote. They can influence all they want, but in the end the voters decide. If they decide based on who gave more money to someone, then that's the voters fault. I don't vote that way, so theres no reason anyone else has to.
Click to expand...

So you don't think money controls how politicians vote on legislation?

C'mon man...?!?!


Secondly, would YOU want to know when deciding who to vote for what money was behind the candidates.
 
jaeger19 said:
So you don't think money controls how politicians vote on legislation?

C'mon man...?!?!


Secondly, would YOU want to know when deciding who to vote for what money was behind the candidates.
Click to expand...

I might, but I would also want to respect the privacy of people who decide to support someone for office. I dont recall ever bothering to look up who gets financed by who. I vote for someone based on their character and policy positions.
 
We know who sponsors the NASCAR drivers. Why shouldn't we know who sponsors our politicians? If we did, then we'd have a better idea just how they'd be likely to vote on a particular issue.
 
jonny5 said:
I might, but I would also want to respect the privacy of people who decide to support someone for office. I dont recall ever bothering to look up who gets financed by who. I vote for someone based on their character and policy positions.
Click to expand...

Exactly.. so you have no idea that say the politician you plan to vote for, that states that he wants to reduce say defense spending... is getting millions of dollars from defense contractors.
Or the politician that says he is pro second amendment is getting millions from anti gun lobbyists.

Or the politician that wants to "get the US off of foreign oil".. is now getting millions from foreign oil interests.

there is a reason that people say.. "money talks and BS walks"... and when you don't know the money behind the politician, you don't know who is doing the talking.
 
jaeger19 said:
Exactly.. so you have no idea that say the politician you plan to vote for, that states that he wants to reduce say defense spending... is getting millions of dollars from defense contractors.
Or the politician that says he is pro second amendment is getting millions from anti gun lobbyists.

Or the politician that wants to "get the US off of foreign oil".. is now getting millions from foreign oil interests.

there is a reason that people say.. "money talks and BS walks"... and when you don't know the money behind the politician, you don't know who is doing the talking.
Click to expand...

WHich is why i vote for people with CHARACTER.
 
jonny5 said:
WHich is why i vote for people with CHARACTER.
Click to expand...

Too funny.... apparently you have not voted for a winning candidate.... EVER...LMAO
 
jonny5 said:
Which is basically anything. 8 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years, social spending is 70% of spending, and Democrats are taking it off the table. So, when the shutdown hits in 79 days, theyll end up passing a CR until the next election, everyone will blame everyone else, and then people will happily vote in exactly the same people again. So look forward to status quo, crisis to crisis, debts and deficits for the next two years at least.
Click to expand...

We already increased taxes by what - $2.8 Trillion? Time for Mr Reid to do his part.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'd prefer to know just who the politician is going to owe if he is elected.
Click to expand...

Employers want to do background checks, drug test, see what you're saying/doing on facebook, run a credit check, etc.

We should have the same rights in regards to our employees in govt. More even.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'd prefer to know just who the politician is going to owe if he is elected.
Click to expand...

And you should be free to ask him for that information, and vote against him if you dont like the answer. But I dont beleive you have a right to know who I support for elective office.
 
What if...? said:
Employers want to do background checks, drug test, see what you're saying/doing on facebook, run a credit check, etc.

We should have the same rights in regards to our employees in govt. More even.
Click to expand...

Should an employer have a right to know how much money your grandmother gave you for your birthday?
 
jonny5 said:
Should an employer have a right to know how much money your grandmother gave you for your birthday?
Click to expand...

If my grandmother owns a competing business they certainly would want to. And our society has no qualms about employers invading employees privacy. So they would probably be allowed. Some demand facebook passwords. So they might find it there.

To the larger issue, like the hotelier who made the bulk of his money from gay guest that donated a great big chunk of money to deny them the right to marry, he deserves to lose those customers he holds in such contempt. He doesn't deserve to be injured or vandalised or any other criminal act. Just the withholding of custom from those he seeks to harm.

Seems perfectly fair.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
And you should be free to ask him for that information, and vote against him if you dont like the answer. But I dont beleive you have a right to know who I support for elective office.
Click to expand...

No, not who you support. That's why we have a secret ballot.
But, who is going to support you and your enterprises if elected, that I'd like to know.
 
jonny5 said:
Should an employer have a right to know how much money your grandmother gave you for your birthday?
Click to expand...

Are you in a position to funnel company money to your grandmothers business?

As an employer, I might want to know the relationships my employees have with competing businesses, or if they are in a position to give sensitive information or company perks to their family, or that their family could influence my employees decisions for their interest and not my companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom