US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[GDB]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Obama hasn't exactly made much effort to work with Republicans. It's either been his way or the highway. At least Clinton and Bush were willing to work with the other side. Obama, not so much.

So all those times he was trying to compromise, and giving the republicans what they wanted so he could get a token allowance to keep society from breaking, that was "not much effort"? I call BS.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

What would you have to give up to treat others with respect, hear them out when they present a conflicting opinion, and give it some honest thought?

Ego, obviously.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

What would you have to give up to treat others with respect, hear them out when they present a conflicting opinion, and give it some honest thought?

I don't respect anyone who is okay with the Government forcing people to buy a product(i.e. Obamacare's mandate that is at the heart of the Supreme Court discussion right now). I don't respect anyone who thinks it's okay for the Government to seize personal property. I don't respect anyone who wants to trounce all over the 1st and 2nd amendment. I don't respect anyone who wants to make America like Europe. There's a whole hell of a lot of people and ideals that I do not, and will never, respect. Respect is earned. Not given.

Originally Posted by GDB

So all those times he was trying to compromise, and giving the republicans what they wanted so he could get a token allowance to keep society from breaking, that was "not much effort"? I call BS.

Examples of compromises? Examples of giving Republicans what they wanted, and examples of what he was wanting in return? Obama's and the Democrats' ideas, are vastly different from most Republicans' ideas. Even if the Republican party is splintered into two factions itself, those two factions still do not agree at all with the majority of Democrat's ideals.

Obama had two years to pass whatever the hell he wanted. Even John Stewart had a piece about the amount of power the Democrats had in the Federal Government, throughout all of 2009-2010. He didn't need the Republicans to support his ideas.

It's no wonder I've never felt a connection with my own generation... I'm too middle class for the rest of you.

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Obama had a super majority control over Congress his first two years. The Republicans haven't seen that kind of power since, oh I don't know. 80 years ago? Bush never even came close to having a super majority in Congress. So please don't blame the Republicans for not supporting Obama's ideas.

How exactly does a Democrat majority in the House and Senate excuse Republicans' complete disinterest in serious negotiations? They could have gotten important concessions from Democrats, like a normal political party would, instead of trying to shut down everything.

Everyone wants to be more united with more social harmony, until they actually have to give up what they have. And frankly, I know very few Americans who are willing to do that. I know I'm not willing to. This isn't just a politician issue that is dividing the country. It's a difference in ideals.

I dunno. Americans seem quite content to give up the freedom and rights that they claim to treasure so much.

That's how it works with both Parties. When one is in power, the other tends to try and do everything they can to stand in their way. Obama hasn't exactly made much effort to work with Republicans. It's either been his way or the highway. At least Clinton and Bush were willing to work with the other side. Obama, not so much.

Obama's instinctive move is always starting from the middle ground. That's how he disappointed his liberal supporters and failed to win over the oppositions. The middle ground is a lonely place these days. As GDB said, your claim is downright inaccurate.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

How exactly does a Democrat majority in the House and Senate excuse Republicans' complete disinterest in serious negotiations? They could have gotten important concessions from Democrats, like a normal political party would, instead of trying to shut down everything.

That is just politics

[Ithekro]

When you start in the middle, when your own party and the other party are expecting you to start to one side or the other, make both sides unhappy. Your own party wanted something you didn't present, and the opposition party thinks you are giving the opposing view as normal and thus wants to haggle in their own direction.

Politics and haggling are fairly standard to reach compromise. Some got into politics because they like haggling over the fates of millions as oppose to over a sandwich at the Farmer's Market.

When you start in the middle, you have no room to haggle away anything of your own, and the other side expects you to come down in their direction. Thus, if you are use to political ideas of compromise, you've just shot the idea in the foot. Because you started at the point where the compromise should have taken place...you loss more than you gain via traditional haggling...or the compromise does not happen at all and everyone gets nothing.

[Autumn Demon]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

How exactly does a Democrat majority in the House and Senate excuse Republicans' complete disinterest in serious negotiations? They could have gotten important concessions from Democrats, like a normal political party would, instead of trying to shut down everything.

Don't hate the players, hate the game. "Normal" political parties when in opposition don't have the kind of power to disrupt the majority that American lawmakers enjoy. Political systems that allow the party out of government to be disruptive will breed gridlock, not compromise (see also Japan's twisted Diet). The Republicans are pretty much doing what every opposition party in other countries do: say no to everything the government proposes. The fault lies with the US Constitution and Senate rules (and some people view gridlock as a boon, not a fault).

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

Don't hate the players, hate the game. "Normal" political parties when in opposition don't have the kind of power to disrupt the majority that American lawmakers enjoy. Political systems that allow the party out of government to be disruptive will breed gridlock, not compromise (see also Japan's twisted Diet). The Republicans are pretty much doing what every opposition party in other countries do: say no to everything the government proposes. The fault lies with the US Constitution and Senate rules (and some people view gridlock as a boon, not a fault).

I tend to blame the "unofficial" rules that the House and Senate use - none of which are in any part of the Constitution... like the "one man holds" in the Senate. Once in a while its a good thing but the misuse far outweighs those moments.

[ganbaru]

Sensing victory, Romney turns attention to Obama fight
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82T1D820120330

[Vena]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I tend to blame the "unofficial" rules that the House and Senate use - none of which are in any part of the Constitution... like the "one man holds" in the Senate. Once in a while its a good thing but the misuse far outweighs those moments.

I can only think of one person in the last several years to have used the "One Man Holds" for good, and that was Wyden. On the other side of the coin, though, I'm pretty sure I'd have a list to make Santa blush for how many people have used it to withhold good bills because they had the audacity to try and fix (or make clearer): tax loop holes, unnecessary subsidies, something or other about reproductive rights... and the list goes ever on.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I don't respect anyone who is okay with the Government forcing people to buy a product(i.e. Obamacare's mandate that is at the heart of the Supreme Court discussion right now). I don't respect anyone who thinks it's okay for the Government to seize personal property. I don't respect anyone who wants to trounce all over the 1st and 2nd amendment. I don't respect anyone who wants to make America like Europe. There's a whole hell of a lot of people and ideals that I do not, and will never, respect. Respect is earned. Not given.

I asked what you would have to give up, what it would cost you to be civil to others and to hear them out. It was a rhetorical question, because it doesn't cost anyone a thing to do those things. So why aren't they doing that?

Instead of telling me what it could possibly cost you, you replied with a list of things that other people would have to do for you in order to earn your respect. That seems a bit selfish, wouldn't you say?

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I asked what you would have to give up, what it would cost you to be civil to others and to hear them out. It was a rhetorical question, because it doesn't cost anyone a thing to do those things. So why aren't they doing that?

Instead of telling me what it could possibly cost you, you replied with a list of things that other people would have to do for you in order to earn your respect. That seems a bit selfish, wouldn't you say?

No, that just sounds like standard contemporary Republican rhetorical strategy to me.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Examples of compromises? Examples of giving Republicans what they wanted, and examples of what he was wanting in return? Obama's and the Democrats' ideas, are vastly different from most Republicans' ideas. Even if the Republican party is splintered into two factions itself, those two factions still do not agree at all with the majority of Democrat's ideals.

Bush tax cuts in order to extend unemployment benefits.

"Obamacare", which was originally set up by Bob Dole and implemented by Romney. Two republicans. He then made deals with republicans that removed the public option in order to get enough approval to pass it.

Debt ceiling increase. Republicans would rather burn the country to the ground than raise taxes on the 1%. He started with a 75% cuts, 25% revenue plan. He then had to take that to 90% / 10%. In the end, there were no taxes, so 100% cuts just to keep the country from burning.

And these are just off the top of my head.

It's no wonder I've never felt a connection with my own generation... I'm too middle class for the rest of you.

If by "too middle class" you mean you're not quite the 1% but you aren't even close to struggling even in a bad economy, then sure. Many might see that as "disconnected" rather than "too middle class", though.

[Autumn Demon]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I tend to blame the "unofficial" rules that the House and Senate use - none of which are in any part of the Constitution... like the "one man holds" in the Senate. Once in a while its a good thing but the misuse far outweighs those moments.

Those rules shouldn't even be on the books. It's a shame the Democrats didn't get rid of some of the arcane Senate rules when they had the chance at the start of the 2011-13 term.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I don't respect anyone who is okay with the Government forcing people to buy a product(i.e. Obamacare's mandate that is at the heart of the Supreme Court discussion right now). I don't respect anyone who thinks it's okay for the Government to seize personal property. I don't respect anyone who wants to trounce all over the 1st and 2nd amendment. I don't respect anyone who wants to make America like Europe. There's a whole hell of a lot of people and ideals that I do not, and will never, respect. Respect is earned. Not given.

I find it amusing when people claim that they do not wish to make America more like Europe. What's so terrible about Europe, I wonder?

If you answer by screaming, "SOCIALISM!" and spittle flies from your lips, then congratulations, you are a moron!

You [righties] keep using that word, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

It's no wonder I've never felt a connection with my own generation... I'm too middle class for the rest of you.

Ah, so you live in a delusional fantasy land, gotcha. Explains a lot.

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

Don't hate the players, hate the game. "Normal" political parties when in opposition don't have the kind of power to disrupt the majority that American lawmakers enjoy. Political systems that allow the party out of government to be disruptive will breed gridlock, not compromise (see also Japan's twisted Diet). The Republicans are pretty much doing what every opposition party in other countries do: say no to everything the government proposes. The fault lies with the US Constitution and Senate rules (and some people view gridlock as a boon, not a fault).

More and more reason why the system is clearly broken, especially in a world where we communicate at the speed of light. Don't even get me started on the electoral college (just watch CGPGrey's videos on the subject).

[Kokukirin]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

Those rules shouldn't even be on the books. It's a shame the Democrats didn't get rid of some of the arcane Senate rules when they had the chance at the start of the 2011-13 term.

Because the Democrats like to abuse them too.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

Because the Democrats like to abuse them too.

Absolutely. The endemic corruption of the American political system would not be able to exist without the complicity of all parties involved. The Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans.

The two parties are too similar in the worst possible ways, and most of the debate and disagreement is a dog and pony show to keep the plebs occupied while they rob the citizens blind.

Sometimes I almost welcome total financial collapse of the global economy. If the dollar were to become as worthless as toilet paper, what I will lose will be effectively nothing, yet the "ruling elite" will be brought down to the same level as everyone else.

And they better hope they bought a lot of bullets beforehand, because the people will be looking for those responsible for the collapse...

[speedyexpress48]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Absolutely. The endemic corruption of the American political system would not be able to exist without the complicity of all parties involved. The Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans.

The two parties are too similar in the worst possible ways, and most of the debate and disagreement is a dog and pony show to keep the plebs occupied while they rob the citizens blind.

Sometimes I almost welcome total financial collapse of the global economy. If the dollar were to become as worthless as toilet paper, what I will lose will be effectively nothing, yet the "ruling elite" will be brought down to the same level as everyone else.

And they better hope they bought a lot of bullets beforehand, because the people will be looking for those responsible for the collapse...

One problem with that; if it does happen, the ruling class would have prepared for it....which means any plan of making them suffer will be essentially worthless.

There's also the problem of mass rioting, but I won't even try to get into that.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by speedyexpress48

One problem with that; if it does happen, the ruling class would have prepared for it....which means any plan of making them suffer will be essentially worthless.

There's also the problem of mass rioting, but I won't even try to get into that.

The ruling class is also really small vs. the three hundred million population of this country. I doubt many in the military would continue to side with the corruptors if they were ordered to fire upon innocent civilians. Military folks take their oaths to protect America and its citizens pretty seriously.

[speedyexpress48]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The ruling class is also really small vs. the three hundred million population of this country. I doubt many in the military would continue to side with the corruptors if they were ordered to fire upon innocent civilians. Military folks take their oaths to protect America and its citizens pretty seriously.

Nah, I was thinking more on the lines that the ruling class will just escape to some islands in private jets. And those islands will be ruled by countries that don't really give a shit about America.

Of course, those islands could be quickly attacked by military...hmm.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I don't respect anyone who is okay with the Government forcing people to buy a product(i.e. Obamacare's mandate that is at the heart of the Supreme Court discussion right now).

Which was a Republican idea back in 1994, thus relating to your question of "giving Republicans what they wanted."

I don't respect anyone who thinks it's okay for the Government to seize personal property. I don't respect anyone who wants to trounce all over the 1st and 2nd amendment.

Maybe someday I'll understand why people always put the 2nd amendment near the top of their lists. Yeah, I think everyone has a right to have one in their home, to defend their home (and I haven't seen anyone trying to strip people of that right). Not to take in bars, or churches, or out on the street. And furthermore, a gun is ultimately a tool for killing, and should be treated with a solemn respect, and as a heavy burden if it ever becomes necessary to use in self-defense - a far cry from the enthusiasm and lackadaisacal attitude I see many approach the subject with.

Examples of compromises? Examples of giving Republicans what they wanted, and examples of what he was wanting in return? Obama's and the Democrats' ideas, are vastly different from most Republicans' ideas.

Actually, the Democrats' ideas have pretty much become the 1990s GOP's ideas. The only reason they seem so different now, is because this isn't the real Republican party. It's a cauldron of cuckoo.

Obama had two years to pass whatever the hell he wanted. Even John Stewart had a piece about the amount of power the Democrats had in the Federal Government, throughout all of 2009-2010. He didn't need the Republicans to support his ideas.

Yeah, because the Dems on the whole are just as bought as the damn GOP, and too many of the ones who aren't are just spineless critters willing to roll over at a moment's notice.