• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

What negotiation?

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,702
Reaction score
20,419
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why are you so blatantly changing the subject?

Why do you so blatantly want to avoid the subject, the reason why you have a government shutdown and why you may have a delay in raising the debt ceiling?
 

Dr. Chuckles

King Conspiratard
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
12,895
Reaction score
2,909
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I've asked this question a lot but can't ever seem to get a straight answer:

In this alleged negotiation over continued funding of our government, what are the Democrats getting in exchange for Republican demands? Yes, Republicans have altered those demands, I know. But what were the Democrats getting in the first place?

the absence of the current situation
 

Dr. Chuckles

King Conspiratard
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
12,895
Reaction score
2,909
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If Obamacare is only near as bad as the GOP says it is

a reactionary base of constituents who will attack those legislatures from their right and put into power more concervative candidates.

Pretty much what led to the replacement of all those political seats that are now populated by tea party candidates
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
25,914
Reaction score
18,660
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
a reactionary base of constituents who will attack those legislatures from their right and put into power more concervative candidates.

Pretty much what led to the replacement of all those political seats that are now populated by tea party candidates

Yes, one could call it a knee jerk reaction. But in 2010 the perception was there and it was more than a perception, it was real that their representatives and senators failed to listen to them on the ACA and a few other bills. But it wasn't the very liberal or very conservative elected officials who lost, it was for the most part the blue dog democrats. The more moderate faction of government went down the tubes to the high extreme far left and right candidates. Hence gridlock and probably hate of the other party.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
77,953
Reaction score
34,477
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
the absence of the current situation

Again, that's not an offer. That's the threat. This is what a mugger does, not someone looking to negotiate.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
77,953
Reaction score
34,477
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why do you so blatantly want to avoid the subject, the reason why you have a government shutdown and why you may have a delay in raising the debt ceiling?

A central point to the idea that Democrats have caused this shutdown is the idea that they are refusing to negotiate.

However, this does not appear to be a negotiation because the Democrats haven't been offered anything.
 

Dr. Chuckles

King Conspiratard
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
12,895
Reaction score
2,909
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Again, that's not an offer. That's the threat.

you not likeing the offer and what leverage they can exert doesn't change that it's negotiational leverage and an offer.


This is what a mugger does, not someone looking to negotiate.

Such tactics occur all the time in parliamentary politics and usually serve as a key to a minority party still exerting influence. You not liking it's recent incarnation does nothing to change that.

So you can either accept that reality and deal with it, or continue to cry "because life ain't fair"
 

Dr. Chuckles

King Conspiratard
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
12,895
Reaction score
2,909
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
A central point to the idea that Democrats have caused this shutdown is the idea that they are refusing to negotiate.

However, this does not appear to be a negotiation because the Democrats haven't been offered anything.

I just pointed out what they are offered
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
77,953
Reaction score
34,477
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
you not likeing the offer and what leverage they can exert doesn't change that it's negotiational leverage and an offer.




Such tactics occur all the time in parliamentary politics and usually serve as a key to a minority party still exerting influence. You not liking it's recent incarnation does nothing to change that.

So you can either accept that reality and deal with it, or continue to cry "because life ain't fair"

Change your phrasing then. It's not that the Democrats refuse to negotiate, it's that they refuse to cave into your demands.
 

Dr. Chuckles

King Conspiratard
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
12,895
Reaction score
2,909
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Yes, one could call it a knee jerk reaction. But in 2010 the perception was there and it was more than a perception, it was real that their representatives and senators failed to listen to them on the ACA and a few other bills. But it wasn't the very liberal or very conservative elected officials who lost, it was for the most part the blue dog democrats. The more moderate faction of government went down the tubes to the high extreme far left and right candidates. Hence gridlock and probably hate of the other party.

because moderates are not usually part, nor do they represent, the reactionary base
 

Dr. Chuckles

King Conspiratard
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
12,895
Reaction score
2,909
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Change your phrasing then.

My phrasing is fine. You're the one claiming no offer was made when an offer was clearly made

It's not that the Democrats refuse to negotiate, it's that they refuse to cave into your demands.

just like the republicans are currently doing: hence, gridlock ...
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
77,953
Reaction score
34,477
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My phrasing is fine. You're the one claiming no offer was made when an offer was clearly made



just like the republicans are currently doing: hence, gridlock ...

The "offer" was the mugger's "I don't shoot you" offer.

Which is, to say, not an offer.
 

Dr. Chuckles

King Conspiratard
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
12,895
Reaction score
2,909
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The "offer" was the mugger's "I don't shoot you" offer.

no reason to repeat myself

http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/174608-negotiation-4.html#post1062400598



Which is, to say, not an offer.

no, it was clearly an offer, or are you confused on what an offer is?

PS just to clarify since you seem to reduce everything to a simplistic partisan perspective: I don't support the current republican position. I think it's stupid and distracts from more pressing issues. But it doesn't change the fact it's important to them and their constituents, and they have every right to represent those and fight for their fulfillment.

That's how parliamentary systems work, if you agree with them or not
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,702
Reaction score
20,419
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A central point to the idea that Democrats have caused this shutdown is the idea that they are refusing to negotiate.

However, this does not appear to be a negotiation because the Democrats haven't been offered anything.

Just so we're all clear - the Republicans want to reduce the cost of government and reduce the cost effects of the ACA on the federal government and on American citizens, and you want to know what they are going to give Democrats?

This is perhaps the single, clearest, example of why your country's finances are so ****ed up. Why should Democrats be "offered" anything to save the country and the American people from a greater debt and tax burden?
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because artificially raising your demands, only so you can lower them later to a reasonable level is a waste of time and completely inefficient. It's immature.

The whole world has been using the same system for bargaining for thousands of years. If you want it changed you're going to have to majorly reform society itself. Good luck on that one. ;)

It's a waste of time right now and everyone knows it. Their attempt to get rid of it is not only wasting taxpayer time and money, but it's legitimately hurting innocent people who need the government open. Republicans have attempted to repeal Obamcare something like 41 times. It's time to give it up, or at the very least, wait until the situation changes to the point where you may actually be able to change it.

Whether it is a waste of time or not is completely subjective. And most people believe that Obamacare will hurt people also...it already has some people. Of course those people are just glossed over as much as possible. There's a few threads here on DP that talk about those people.

Mitt Romney ran on repealing Obamacare. It was one of the many things he was going to do on Day One.

Running on it and it actually being talked about are two different things.

Mitt Romney ran on repealing Obamacare. Americans showed they either didn't want it repealed.

Mitt also ran on other things to. And so did Obama. There were many reasons Romney lost and Obama won. To claim that Romney lost because he was against Obamacare and Obama won because of Obamacare is nothing more than spin. To continueally claim it despite those facts is dishonest.

We have one of the most conservative Supreme Courts in recent history. If even they say it is Constitutional, then it's hard for me to understand how anyone can argue it.

Conservative, liberal, doesn't matter. The mandate was passed because those that voted for the mandate had to spin.

Because their obstinance will go no where and it's hurting people.

If it goes no where then that is the Democrats fault for being the new party of "No!". And as for it hurting people, that is BOTH parties fault. Not just the republicans or democrats. It is both of their faults. Equally. As I've said before, it takes two in order to agree or disagree on any arguement. And in this case both parties know what is at stake and that this shut down is hurting people. Yet they both continue to play games. There was no harm to Obamacare if the government extended the extension to the general populace just like the big business and the rest of the government got. Other than the fear of the democrats that that extension will some how kill Obamacare.

But they have...and you don't see Democrats demanding Republicans pass gun control or they'll shut down the government or ruin America's credit rating.

No, they haven't. On both cases. But neither have they done anything to even make a gesture towards the repbulicans. Both parties ever since Obama was first elected have taken on the attitude that "their" bill had better pass or nothing will get done. Its all "me me me me!" attitude. Why anyone even supports either party is beyond me.

It's time for Republicans to put it in their back pocket. They've lost this round. Obamacare is in effect and it's not going to change as long as the Democrats control the Senate and White House. Quit wasting people's time and hurting innocent Americans by making unreasonable demands.

The reverse could be said of the Democrats in this situation. :shrug:
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In theory, Republicans would be getting some of these demands regarding Obamacare. In exchange for....


...


.... let me know.

Do you know how negotiations work? It's not up to the Republicans to offer anything. It is up to the Democrats. After they make a counter offer then it is up to Republicans to offer something. There must be a give and take on both sides. Party A offers one thing and Party B makes a counter offer. Both sides continue to negotiate giving a little bit of ground to both sides. Eventually coming to an agreement. Democrats have not given any counter offer. They just keep saying "No!". At the starting of any negotiation there must be a "want" and from there counter offers must be made. Republicans started out with defunding Obamacare. Democrats said no...with NO counter offer. Republicans said "Ok, how about this"? And lowered thier demands to just asking for an extension for all citizens for Obamacare. Democrats still said "No!", again without offering up ANY counter proposal. That is NOT how negotiations work. There is a little give and take on both sides. Republicans already gave up a little....it is now the Democrats turn. Instead they are acting like spoiled little children thowing a tantrum until they get their way.
 

YoungConserv

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
3,083
Reaction score
601
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I've asked this question a lot but can't ever seem to get a straight answer:

In this alleged negotiation over continued funding of our government, what are the Democrats getting in exchange for Republican demands? Yes, Republicans have altered those demands, I know. But what were the Democrats getting in the first place?

It's the sane kind of negotiation they have used on republican for years.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
11,201
Reaction score
7,380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The whole world has been using the same system for bargaining for thousands of years. If you want it changed you're going to have to majorly reform society itself. Good luck on that one. ;)
So...you're saying because the Democrats didn't make outrageously stupid demands before now, they are the ones being unreasonable for not sticking to a reduced version of said outrageously stupid demands?

I'm sorry, your entire logic here baffles me. You're claiming the Democrats, who have already agreed to the resolution except for Obamacare, have not offered Republicans anything because they did not previously demand outrageously stupid things. This mentality seems so utterly ridiculous to me.

Whether it is a waste of time or not is completely subjective.
No, it's really not. The Senate is Democrat heavy and the President is the legislation's namesake. Both have said they will not agree to Republicans demands of repeal/defunding. It was passed, signed, upheld and supported in a vote. Republicans are simply wasting time.

And most people believe that Obamacare will hurt people also
No, not really, as many of the people who say they do not like Obamacare say that because they feel it doesn't go far enough. Furthermore, of the group who dislikes Obamacare, I'd venture most of them believe at least one provably false myth about Obamacare.

Running on it and it actually being talked about are two different things.
If Obamacare was something voters disliked, then Republicans would have talked about it. Romney made no secret he was against it and Obama obviously is for it. American voters do not want it gone.

To claim that Romney lost because he was against Obamacare and Obama won because of Obamacare is nothing more than spin. To continueally claim it despite those facts is dishonest.
I'm not claiming that. What I'm claiming is if Americans did not want Obamacare, they would not have voted for Obama. There's a difference in the wording. At best, you can argue Americans didn't care enough about Obamacare. At worst, you have to admit Americans want it. But what you simply cannot say is that Americans dislike Obamacare so much they voted Romney for President.

Conservative, liberal, doesn't matter. The mandate was passed because those that voted for the mandate had to spin.
Of course it matters. It matters because the conservative court upheld the "liberal" legislation, legislation which expanded the role of government. It most certainly matters and anyone who claims Obamacare is unconstitutional is not using any real logic but rather their bias against the legislation.

If it goes no where then that is the Democrats fault for being the new party of "No!".
When exactly did Fox News start spreading this talking point? I've seen it so much recently, there's no doubt it has to be pushed by conservative media.

As far as "no" goes, why is Boehner saying no to a vote? Why are Republicans saying "no" to the resolution passed by the Senate? And most importantly, why do people believe the BS coming from conservative media?

And as for it hurting people, that is BOTH parties fault.
No, not really. It's really simple...both sides have agreed to just about everything, with the exception of the Republican position to repeal/defund a law which was passed by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court and affirmed by a presidential election. If the Democrats were holding up the spending resolution by demanding an increase of spending to institute gun control measures or increase in tax rates, then they would be the ones at fault.

Not just the republicans or democrats. It is both of their faults. Equally.
No, no it's really not.

There was no harm to Obamacare if the government extended the extension to the general populace just like the big business and the rest of the government got.
This is simply false. Delaying it for even one year would cause large logistical problems, not to mention there would be NOTHING to prevent Republicans from pulling the same BS next year, thus fueling future uncertainty.

To say there would be no harm is simply false.

No, they haven't.
That's because they are a few shades less crazy than Republicans right now.

But neither have they done anything to even make a gesture towards the repbulicans.
Only because they didn't start with outrageously stupid demands in the first place. The sheer idiocy of having to make grand claims you don't even want, in order to have the Republican Party agree to do their job is mind-boggling.

The reverse could be said of the Democrats in this situation. :shrug:
Umm, not really. Democrats lost the gun control fight earlier this year. You don't see them attaching gun control measures to their list of demands, do you? Democrats lost, and it was essentially dropped. It's the Republicans turn to realize they cannot win this and let sanity be restored (relatively speaking, of course).
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So...you're saying because the Democrats didn't make outrageously stupid demands before now, they are the ones being unreasonable for not sticking to a reduced version of said outrageously stupid demands?

What is outragously stupid demands? Such a thing is entirely subjective. IMO the Republicans asking that regular joe blow down the street get an extension the same as big business and those in Congress got is not a "outrageously stupid demand". It's down right reasonable. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. And imo anyone that wasn't partisan or fearful would agree that it isn't.

I'm sorry, your entire logic here baffles me. You're claiming the Democrats, who have already agreed to the resolution except for Obamacare, have not offered Republicans anything because they did not previously demand outrageously stupid things. This mentality seems so utterly ridiculous to me.

You are the one claiming i'm talking about "outrageously stupid things". As I said above...what that is, is entirely subjective. And last I heard, Republicans agreed to the resolution also, just they wanted regular joe blow to have the same extension as big business and congress got.

No, it's really not. The Senate is Democrat heavy and the President is the legislation's namesake. Both have said they will not agree to Republicans demands of repeal/defunding. It was passed, signed, upheld and supported in a vote. Republicans are simply wasting time.

You consider it a waste of time. Others do not. Like the above comments, this too is entirely subjective.

No, not really, as many of the people who say they do not like Obamacare say that because they feel it doesn't go far enough. Furthermore, of the group who dislikes Obamacare, I'd venture most of them believe at least one provably false myth about Obamacare.

The mandate has hurt every single American. That is truth. Whether people see it or not. The government now has the power to force people to buy from any private business just by attaching it to the IRS and the tax code. That is a loss of freedom. Yeah yeah, I've heard the lines..."Oh thats just a conspiracy theory"...."The government would never do that!"...."Slipper slope fallacy". Sorry, I've seen too many slippery slopes actually happen to think that this is any different. Besides, fact is that they do have that power now. Whether they use it or not is irrelevent. This once instance people lost some freedom.

If Obamacare was something voters disliked, then Republicans would have talked about it. Romney made no secret he was against it and Obama obviously is for it. American voters do not want it gone.

Yeah, voters also dislike a tanking economy, job loss, wars and many other things. But we don't talk about all of them at the same time do we? We decide what to talk about based on what is on the news. Romney lost due to a lot of things. But it wasn't because of his stance on Obamacare. Claiming otherwise ignores reality. But hey, this is your arguement. Prove to me that Romney lost solely because of his stance on Obamacare. Because that is the argument that you are presenting with your spin.

I'm not claiming that. What I'm claiming is if Americans did not want Obamacare, they would not have voted for Obama. There's a difference in the wording. At best, you can argue Americans didn't care enough about Obamacare. At worst, you have to admit Americans want it. But what you simply cannot say is that Americans dislike Obamacare so much they voted Romney for President.

Yes, that is exactly what you are claiming. You are saying that if voters truely didn't like Obamacare then they would have voted in Romney no matter any other issue. You are ignoreing the multitude of other reasons that Romney was not voted in and Obama was.

Of course it matters. It matters because the conservative court upheld the "liberal" legislation, legislation which expanded the role of government. It most certainly matters and anyone who claims Obamacare is unconstitutional is not using any real logic but rather their bias against the legislation.

Yeah, it definitely expanded the role of government. On that count I cannot disagree with you. And yes, the Mandate in Obamacare is certainly unconstitutional. I've already argued this point before. The mandate fine is just that, a fine. It is not a tax. A tax is something that is paid by the populace to the government for the benefit of those that pay the tax via services provided by the government. Those that pay this fine will receive absolutely no benefit what so ever. As such it is not a tax. Don't believe me? Then look at every single tax on the books and find me one single one that does not benefit the general populace outside of this mandate.

When exactly did Fox News start spreading this talking point? I've seen it so much recently, there's no doubt it has to be pushed by conservative media.

:roll: Believe it or not, not everyone that disagrees with you watches fox news. I certainly don't. Also, believe it or not there are actually people that think for themselves and do not follow political parties.

As far as "no" goes, why is Boehner saying no to a vote? Why are Republicans saying "no" to the resolution passed by the Senate? And most importantly, why do people believe the BS coming from conservative media?

Because Democrats are being childish? And the republicans are not saying no to the resolution. They are saying "we want this in it". As for your other question. Ask them. I think for myself and don't watch conservative or liberal media.

No, not really. It's really simple...both sides have agreed to just about everything, with the exception of the Republican position to repeal/defund a law which was passed by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court and affirmed by a presidential election. If the Democrats were holding up the spending resolution by demanding an increase of spending to institute gun control measures or increase in tax rates, then they would be the ones at fault.[/qutoe]

Bold: Seriously this is already getting old. Repeating yourself does not good for your arguement. Particularly when its already been answered.

As for the rest: First question: Ask yourself why haven't the democrats accepted it? It doesn't hurt them or Obamacare if even half of what you say here is true if they agreed to it. And whether you like it or not, both are at fault. As I said before, it takes TWO to disagree or agree in any arguement.

No, no it's really not.

Yes, it really is.

This is simply false. Delaying it for even one year would cause large logistical problems, not to mention there would be NOTHING to prevent Republicans from pulling the same BS next year, thus fueling future uncertainty.

What logistical problems? And why wouldn't those same problems also apply to Big Business and Congress? Why are they so special that THEIR omission for a year wouldn't cause the same problems? As for the rest, :shrug: don't give them a reason to.

To say there would be no harm is simply false.

Prove it.

That's because they are a few shades less crazy than Republicans right now.

In your eyes maybe. In my eyes they are both equally crazy and irresponsible and they all need to be ousted.

Only because they didn't start with outrageously stupid demands in the first place. The sheer idiocy of having to make grand claims you don't even want, in order to have the Republican Party agree to do their job is mind-boggling.

Asking for the people to be treated the same as Congress and Big Business is not idiocy. Nor is it "grand". Its asking for the same treatment.

Umm, not really. Democrats lost the gun control fight earlier this year. You don't see them attaching gun control measures to their list of demands, do you? Democrats lost, and it was essentially dropped. It's the Republicans turn to realize they cannot win this and let sanity be restored (relatively speaking, of course).

No, it has not been dropped. It is just on a back burner because they think that pointing fingers at Republicans for this shutdown is more important for their own political welfare and their pocketbooks.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
11,201
Reaction score
7,380
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What is outragously stupid demands? Such a thing is entirely subjective. IMO the Republicans asking that regular joe blow down the street get an extension the same as big business and those in Congress got is not a "outrageously stupid demand". It's down right reasonable. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. And imo anyone that wasn't partisan or fearful would agree that it isn't.
It's not reasonable for two reasons. The first is because of simple logistics and confusion surrounding what would be required of Americans. The second would be because if you delay it now, there's nothing to stop the Republicans from throwing a fit next year and demanding the same thing. It's not reasonable.

You are the one claiming i'm talking about "outrageously stupid things".
You are. You said because the Democrats didn't start out making outrageously stupid demands (like defunding Obamacare), they have not offered Republicans anything in negotiation.

You consider it a waste of time. Others do not. Like the above comments, this too is entirely subjective.
Then others are deluding themselves because it is a waste of time. Regardless of how you feel about Obamacare, it's not going anywhere. It is already in effect, the exchanges have already been opened and taking enrollment...it's a waste of time. If Republicans want to change it, then do it through regular legislative means, or when you have greater power in government.

The only people who don't think it's a waste of time are people who are deluding themselves to think anything substantial is going to change.

The mandate has hurt every single American. That is truth. Whether people see it or not. The government now has the power to force people to buy from any private business just by attaching it to the IRS and the tax code. That is a loss of freedom. Yeah yeah, I've heard the lines..."Oh thats just a conspiracy theory"...."The government would never do that!"...."Slipper slope fallacy". Sorry, I've seen too many slippery slopes actually happen to think that this is any different. Besides, fact is that they do have that power now. Whether they use it or not is irrelevent. This once instance people lost some freedom.
We long ago lost the freedom to have affordable healthcare. You see required insurance as a loss of freedom, I see the potential for gaining freedom from life-savings draining medical care.

Yes, that is exactly what you are claiming. You are saying that if voters truely didn't like Obamacare then they would have voted in Romney no matter any other issue. You are ignoreing the multitude of other reasons that Romney was not voted in and Obama was.
Obamacare was a major platform of Mitt Romney's. For you to say otherwise is simply revisionist history. Republicans and Romney railed against Obamacare. It was a Day One agenda item. Given the state of the economy, the military engagements, high unemployment, etc., don't you think if Americans did not like Obamacare, they would have voted for Romney? Of course they would. Furthermore, your assertion an issue cannot dominate an election is simply false. Murdock and Akin both lost their Congressional runs because of one position on women's rights/abortion. Lawmakers in Colorado recently lost a recall election on the issue of gun control.

The fact is Obamacare was put on trial during the presidential election and it passed. It passed Congress, the President, the Supreme Court and an election. It's just a fact.

Yeah, it definitely expanded the role of government. On that count I cannot disagree with you. And yes, the Mandate in Obamacare is certainly unconstitutional.
No, no it is not. You can continue saying it all you want, but even the most conservative Supreme Court in recent history tells you you are wrong.

:roll: Believe it or not, not everyone that disagrees with you watches fox news. I certainly don't. Also, believe it or not there are actually people that think for themselves and do not follow political parties.
I never said you watched Fox News. What I asked is when they started pushing this talking point because I've seen it WAY to often to believe the majority of Republicans suddenly came up with it on their own.

Because Democrats are being childish?
Childish...because they are not giving in to the ransom demanded by House Republicans? "Defund/repeal Obamacare or else"?

And the republicans are not saying no to the resolution.
They are saying no to even taking a vote. The Senate passed the resolution. The Democrats expect they have enough votes in the House for the Senate version to pass. CNN projects there are enough votes to pass the House.

So why don't we have a vote?

Bold: Seriously this is already getting old.
Yes, I'm sure the truth does get old. It doesn't make it any less true. Passed by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court and affirmed in an election. Furthermore, it is supported by 3/4ths of our current government (Senate, President and Supreme Court).

The minority party is demanding a ransom from 2/3rds of the government in exchange for doing the job they are Constitutionally required to do. This entire shutdown is because Republicans want to control everything, despite being the party in the minority.

As for the rest: First question: Ask yourself why haven't the democrats accepted it?
They accepted EVERYTHING about it except the Obamacare provision. That's your negotiation.

"We'll agree to your demands, but only if you agree to our one condition of not including Obamacare". That's negotiation. Anyone who is not blinded by partisanship should be able to see that.

And whether you like it or not, both are at fault. As I said before, it takes TWO to disagree or agree in any arguement.
No, it does not work that way. Blame is not a two-way street by default. You have to look at the facts and assign blame based on the facts. And the fact is the House is holding the government hostage because they are not getting 100% of what they want, even though the Senate and President has already agreed to almost all of it.

There's only one place to place the blame.

What logistical problems?
The first and most obvious would simply be putting out the information. We've had three years to prepare for this and people, whether they like it or not, at least understand they have to sign up and have insurance by January 1st. Delay it a year, and all you do is provide more confusion to the system. Furthermore, you have insurers who have prepared for it ready to accept people, you have government workers whose job it is to help people through it, etc.

And then, those people still won't know if they'll have to sign up for next year because there's nothing stopping Republicans from doing the exact same thing next year.

And why wouldn't those same problems also apply to Big Business and Congress? Why are they so special that THEIR omission for a year wouldn't cause the same problems? As for the rest, :shrug: don't give them a reason to.
I'm not aware of why you're mentioning Congress. To the best of my knowledge, they are required to sign up like everyone else.

As far as Big Business goes, there's many differences between individuals and business. Individuals have to deal with one person signing up for insurance, big business have to deal with hundreds or thousands of people who they will have to provide insurance. Businesses have much greater resources to deal with a delay, but also have much greater responsibilities to comply with the legislation.

In your eyes maybe.
In the eyes of the various polls which show more people are upset with Republicans.

In my eyes they are both equally crazy and irresponsible and they all need to be ousted.
No arguments here.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
6,481
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you know how negotiations work? It's not up to the Republicans to offer anything. It is up to the Democrats. After they make a counter offer then it is up to Republicans to offer something. There must be a give and take on both sides. Party A offers one thing and Party B makes a counter offer. Both sides continue to negotiate giving a little bit of ground to both sides. Eventually coming to an agreement. Democrats have not given any counter offer. They just keep saying "No!". At the starting of any negotiation there must be a "want" and from there counter offers must be made. Republicans started out with defunding Obamacare. Democrats said no...with NO counter offer. Republicans said "Ok, how about this"? And lowered thier demands to just asking for an extension for all citizens for Obamacare. Democrats still said "No!", again without offering up ANY counter proposal. That is NOT how negotiations work. There is a little give and take on both sides. Republicans already gave up a little....it is now the Democrats turn. Instead they are acting like spoiled little children thowing a tantrum until they get their way.

Actually, prior to the government shutdown Republicans refused negotiation. Now that they have shut it down, the democrats are refusing until the government is reopened. They aren't saying no outright, they're saying they will negotiate when the republicans stop holding the government hostage, just like they tried to do so before the extremists threatened economic disaster.

"For six months I've tried to enter into formal budget negotiations with Paul Ryan, only to be repeatedly denied permission to negotiate by Ted Cruz and the tea party," said Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash. "Now, a week into a government shutdown that he could end at a moment's notice, Speaker Boehner is simply trying to distract from his constantly changing list of demands."
 
Top Bottom