The leadership has to be going out of their minds, especially with the 20 or so that said they'd vote for a clean CR... Especially there, a tea party challenge is basically a D win
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
The leadership has to be going out of their minds, especially with the 20 or so that said they'd vote for a clean CR... Especially there, a tea party challenge is basically a D win
I've said 100 times now: They are fucked either way, which is why I wish they'd come to their senses and bite the bullet now opposed to later when the economy collapses AND EVERYONE STILL HATES THEM.
I think it goes back to the "Pride" statement made by the GOP rep. That's exactly what it is. They have stale pride and cannot come to terms with the fact that appeasing the Tea Party to this point has done them no favors and will lose them a lot of seats next year.
They are quite close to losing the house if they don't get their act together and soon.
I think it goes back to the "Pride" statement made by the GOP rep. That's exactly what it is. They have stale pride and cannot come to terms with the fact that appeasing the Tea Party to this point has done them no favors and will lose them a lot of seats next year.
They are quite close to losing the house if they don't get their act together and soon.
Manmademan
Member
It depends on where they are. I can only comment on PA-07 and PA-08, but both of those representatives held onto their seats via razor thin margins in areas that are progressively getting more democratic. There IS no tea party threat there, they survive by the grace of moderate republicans and ambivalent democrats.
Something like this WILL be brought up next year and WILL get them kicked out of office. That's not an "if", that's a certainty. if any other representatives are in the same boat (likely, given where these districts are) i can see a clean CR happening.
zero shift
Banned
Being fair, a lot of people have been rude throughout the year. Maybe people are just sick of the repetitive nature of American politics.
the perfect compromise - Adopt non-partisan computer generated districts. institute mandatory voting for primaries. the top two vote getters go into a general election that also has mandatory voting. abolish the debt ceiling and get rid of the CR. If you can't pass a budget then the last one that was passed is automatically used.
Everyone wins! Republicans are saved from their own stupidity and we have a democracy that will function better.
Manmademan
Member
Mandatory voting will never work here. First amendment, brah. Besides, republicans rely on disenfranchising voters to stay in office. higher turnout is a death sentence for them. Otherwise we would have already had holiday voting/saturday voting/early voting everywhere it's feasible.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
The thing that confuses me about the "obama didn't really mean it" 14th admendment theory is that he didn't say he's not going to do it, he said he doesn't have the power to use it. You'd think the first one would have gotten the point across just fine without saying you'd be breaking the law to do it. It doesn't allow a whole lot of wiggle room to back out of.
I'm more for the coin anyhow. Let's end this debt backed inflation economy and try out a mint backed inflation economy. Debt is a lot more top down, while the mint would be a lot more bottom up. I mean if the economy is already screwed, why not try it?
I'm more for the coin anyhow. Let's end this debt backed inflation economy and try out a mint backed inflation economy. Debt is a lot more top down, while the mint would be a lot more bottom up. I mean if the economy is already screwed, why not try it?
jamesinclair
Banned
Ive only ever had two members on ignore.
They've now both been banned.
Im glad this thread can go back to focusing on the real issues.
Manmademan
Member
I'm scratching my head over how that's precedence. The second you REQUIRED someone to vote for a candidate, you would run smack into first amendment claims that the right NOT to vote is also speech- which it pretty much is.
given that the current supreme court seems to interpret even spending money by corporations as "speech" this isn't much of a stretch.
edit: it appears the document you link to also confirms that this is the biggest problem with compulsory voting, but gives a fairly weak argument against it. the ability to write in a candidate in no way gets around the government being unable to restrict freedom of speech/expression.
Precisely.
Because it is completely unprecedented and the implications would not be known.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
First time for everything. Same could be said about the move from gold to debt.
Worst thing that could happen is the government abuses its new power, but then we could just put a legal limit on it that congress could vote to increase every year to keep us in check. Whatever could go wrong?
jamesinclair
Banned
Hey guys, global warming, amirite???
wtf is climate change
It's 70 in NYC. I went to my folks place for dinner and they were BBQing. It's October and they're talking about needing to get another propane tank. It's like summer's never going to end.
Manmademan
Member
we should be so lucky. Fuck winter, seriously.
There's a front going through. It cannot last long there because it's 81 in Austin, Texas.
R10Neymarfan
Member
There is a reason winter exists though. If anything it screws with he course of animals in nature and all that.
The mentions of a possible to move to impeach Obama in the unlikely event he used the 14th reminded me somebody mentioned here there were possible legal ramifications for the House in this situation. But I forget the specifics.
Is there actually a credible legal threat the Administration can bring to bear should the House continue to not only perpetuate the situation but effectively cause default?
In an environment where Tea Party Republicans apparently do not care about the suffering or others and seemingly would happily watch the world burn rather than let Democrats and Obama "have their way", is the threat of constituent suffering in a continued rolling into default enough? Does the Administration have any angle to make this personal for House Republicans by raising the prospect of criminal charges?
My knowledge in this area is really lacking (I'm mainly learning about American politics by osmosis).
Is there actually a credible legal threat the Administration can bring to bear should the House continue to not only perpetuate the situation but effectively cause default?
In an environment where Tea Party Republicans apparently do not care about the suffering or others and seemingly would happily watch the world burn rather than let Democrats and Obama "have their way", is the threat of constituent suffering in a continued rolling into default enough? Does the Administration have any angle to make this personal for House Republicans by raising the prospect of criminal charges?
My knowledge in this area is really lacking (I'm mainly learning about American politics by osmosis).
PhoenixDark
Banned
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/u...to-raise-debt-ceiling.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
Good to see the WH learning. Force the other side to lay out their plan to cut old people's care, don't do it for them.
Oh, this should be good.
We're going to cut costs... Now your turn Obama... Why don't you have a plan?!!
JetBlackPanda
Member
RIP in peace Dax
For what??
queue lack of leadership Republican talking point
jamesinclair
Banned
RIP in peace Dax
You do know what the IP in RIP stands for, right?
It's a running joke.
Shadow Hog
Member
I just wish I knew where it started.
Urban Dictionary says possibly from Football 365.
"Expanding their demands" -- so fucking Obamacare implementation stays intact? smh x infinity
Whatever that means, Mr. Costa.
Obamacare is just about off the table, they are just looking at something to try and save face internally
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Anybody read that Scalia interview? He's really concerned about the devil and gets his news from the Washington Times and talk radio. Explains a lot.
cooljeanius
Member
Link?
Trying to figure that out.
tanooki141
Member
I'm in denial that Dax' ban is permanent.
She was definitely a key poster here.
She was definitely a key poster here.
It was on her twitter, but she deleted in. Something about playing up the fact she was a woman or something.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The obsession that it was passed without republican votes annoys me too. It ignores how republicans rejected every attempt to make the bill more to their liking.
Also how many confederates voted for the 13th amendment?
JetBlackPanda
Member
Whatever happened I will miss her!
I'm not sure what she did and maybe if was justified but from what I knew of her
/salute
I'm not sure what she did and maybe if was justified but from what I knew of her
/salute
More than the number of republicans who voted for the ACA, I think? That could make a great point.
Confederates can't vote in the House of Representatives. (I'm probably getting trolled.)
cooljeanius
Member
#FreeDax
- Status