Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Whembly...if everything is just going to circle back on Reid every time, with zero acknowledgement of the GOP's complete obstructionist behavior and pretending that such is perfectly reasonable everday politics as intended by the framers and practiced daily for generations, then no conversation is ever going to go anywhere.

Yes, you have accurately described both nearly every political thread in the OT, and one of the strongest drivers of maintaining that status quo.

To see it from another POV, the GOP aren't obstructionist, they are noble heroes keeping the American Way of Life (tm) alive. We are currently at the story arc where the villainous Cheeto Jesus has betrayed our heroes, but a savior will emerge (Cruz probably, or perhaps Ryan) and lead the GOP to the promised land of St. Reagan.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Whembly...if everything is just going to circle back on Reid every time, with zero acknowledgement of the GOP's complete obstructionist behavior and pretending that such is perfectly reasonable everday politics as intended by the framers and practiced daily for generations, then no conversation is ever going to go anywhere.

Yes, you have accurately described both nearly every political thread in the OT, and one of the strongest drivers of maintaining that status quo.

Aka, I'm going to ignore/cheer shenanigans my team does, but gleefully prop up the other team as the worst thing ever.

Stay woke ya'll.

Yes, that is exactly what you do.

Whatever you say 'Musketeer... (I'll admit, I walked right into that one. )

In other news...Conservatives claim votes to stop GOP Obamacare repeal.

We'll see about that... eh? The vote is scheduled for tomorrow.

Either way, fireworks 'bound to happen...

I mean they don't need that many, considering the D's are all voting against it.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean they don't need that many, considering the D's are all voting against it.

Eh?

Politico is estimating 22 House GOP is enough to block it. (and I think that's right).

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean they don't need that many, considering the D's are all voting against it.

Eh?

Politico is estimating 22 House GOP is enough to block it. (and I think that's right).

Oh, duh, I was thinking senate.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean they don't need that many, considering the D's are all voting against it.

Eh?

Politico is estimating 22 House GOP is enough to block it. (and I think that's right).

Oh, duh, I was thinking senate.

No worries, you had confused me a bit.

Yeah, so it looks like Paul Ryan is going to double-dog dare his GOP colleagues to deep-six RyanCare.

The Senate is even more precarious(sp?) as there are 4 hard "no's".

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Whembly...if everything is just going to circle back on Reid every time, with zero acknowledgement of the GOP's complete obstructionist behavior and pretending that such is perfectly reasonable everday politics as intended by the framers and practiced daily for generations, then no conversation is ever going to go anywhere.

Yes, you have accurately described both nearly every political thread in the OT, and one of the strongest drivers of maintaining that status quo.

Aka, I'm going to ignore/cheer shenanigans my team does, but gleefully prop up the other team as the worst thing ever.

Stay woke ya'll.

Whembly, this is an evasive nonanswer. You've shown you can debate better than that.

Again, the Republicans were simply not allowing any nominatons. Not on the qualities of the candidates, but simply to prevent filling anything from Obama just because it was Obama.

That's monstrously detrimental to government functionality and competent governance. It is not advising and consenting, it is obstruction for its own sake.

To fix that Reid did what he did.

Yes, it has an impact on what is happening now, but lets be real about whats wrong now. We have fundamentally unqualified candidates, some of whom have expressed and supported extreme views and positions. These people do not belong in these offices. Some candidates have been good picks and these sailed through with little or no opposition (e.g. Mattis). The pushback has come against specific candidates, not blanket opposition to literally everyone Trump has opposed.

Now, the old fillibister to prevent these appointments was removed by Reid. Point. We get it.

However, in both cases, the problems in question are related to GOP behavior, either rampant blanket obstructionism for purely partisan purposes, or the appointment of unqualified people to office.

Blaming everything on Reid is...well, hardly being objective. Reid removed a safety valve to ensure continued operation. He did not shut down the goverenment nor is he behind proposing and confirming plainly unqualified candidates. The fillibuster is a secondary distraction, an excuse to deflect, not the core fundamental problem.

But..but...but...my team is currently "winning"? Doesn't that count for something?

Spicer: “To suggest that the President knew who [Manafort’s] clients were from a decade ago is a bit insane.”


Disgraceful.

And the repubs. will let it slide for tax breaks for the rich and further restrictions on abortions.

While people who believe that you could feed 5,000 people with some loaves and fishes demand statistical analysis that meals on wheels or school kids being fed is of any help to people.

 reds8n wrote:

Spicer: “To suggest that the President knew who [Manafort’s] clients were from a decade ago is a bit insane.”


Disgraceful.

And the repubs. will let it slide for tax breaks for the rich and further restrictions on abortions.

While people who believe that you could feed 5,000 people with some loaves and fishes demand statistical analysis that meals on wheels or school kids being fed is of any help to people.

Red, it's pretty obvious they only break out the C, G, and J words when it fits their narrative. They are about as far from Christian as one could be.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Whembly...if everything is just going to circle back on Reid every time, with zero acknowledgement of the GOP's complete obstructionist behavior and pretending that such is perfectly reasonable everday politics as intended by the framers and practiced daily for generations, then no conversation is ever going to go anywhere.

Yes, you have accurately described both nearly every political thread in the OT, and one of the strongest drivers of maintaining that status quo.

Aka, I'm going to ignore/cheer shenanigans my team does, but gleefully prop up the other team as the worst thing ever.

Stay woke ya'll.

Whembly, this is an evasive nonanswer. You've shown you can debate better than that.

Again, the Republicans were simply not allowing any nominatons. Not on the qualities of the candidates, but simply to prevent filling anything from Obama just because it was Obama.

That's monstrously detrimental to government functionality and competent governance. It is not advising and consenting, it is obstruction for its own sake.

To fix that Reid did what he did.

See what democrats did from 2001 to 2005. Are you going to say that the GOP should've nuked the filibuster then? (Also, Miguel Estrada is your version of Merrick Garland for slightly different reasons.)

It took both sides to come together, with the usual backroom deal makings on other activities, in the form of the gang of 14.

The cynic in me surmises that Democrats/Obama felt it was more politically advantageous to not engage with the GOP in any form, than to entertain anything like the gang of 14... which turned out being a poor strategy for Democrat electoral chances outside of Obama's 2nd term.

Yes, it has an impact on what is happening now, but lets be real about whats wrong now. We have fundamentally unqualified candidates, some of whom have expressed and supported extreme views and positions. These people do not belong in these offices. Some candidates have been good picks and these sailed through with little or no opposition (e.g. Mattis). The pushback has come against specific candidates, not blanket opposition to literally everyone Trump has opposed.

Now, the old fillibister to prevent these appointments was removed by Reid. Point. We get it.

Glad you've acknowledge that in this juncture.

However, in both cases, the problems in question are related to GOP behavior, either rampant blanket obstructionism for purely partisan purposes, or the appointment of unqualified people to office.

Here's something that may make your life a bit better. First, acknowledge that by it's very own nature, congressional critters act in purely partisan purposes to varying degrees and/or on ideological/altruistic manner. More likely the former rather than the latter...

I'm placing some of the blame on the GOP for sure, as it takes two to tango... but, this whitewashing of Democrat's actions is just mind boggling.

Blaming everything on Reid is...well, hardly being objective. Reid removed a safety valve to ensure continued operation.

I'm not blaming everything on Rieid. I blame him for weakening the filibuster and now, Democrats (NeverTrumpers) are 'suffering' the consequences of that. He probably believed that Obama would win his next term and that HRC would run/and likely win in '16... thus, assurdedly felt safe to nuking it w/o suffering any fallout.

He did not shut down the goverenment

Eh? Wasn't that over Obamacare led by Green Eggs & Ham Cruz???

nor is he behind proposing and confirming plainly unqualified candidates. The fillibuster is a secondary distraction, an excuse to deflect, not the core fundamental problem.

They're both fundamental problems and I disagree vehemently over the idea that Reid had 'no choice' in this matter.

He (and by extension Obama) had a choice...

Especially galling since Trump shocked the world and won... thus, Reid:

So what do you think Ried should have done Whembly? Let our government grind to a halt with nobody able to run it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521089304/congress-rolls-back-obama-era-rule-on-hunting-bears-and-wolves-in-alaska

How dare the government manage it's own lands! Or something. Because feth the environment amiright!

Whembly, regardless of whether or not Reid had a choice in the matter or what he did was right or wrong, Reid's role and the Fillibuster are secondary issues, they are neither the core problem nor would the absence of his actions have prevented everything today.

We had a senate and congress that refused to engage on almost anything purely for its own sake, and abused a mechanism meant for last ditch cases at every single opportunity.

We have a GOP now that is investing wholly unqualified people into positions of power and advocating for public policies that are quite frankly insane.

Those are the problems.


Blaming Reid for everything is both asinine and a deflection. Reid removed *one* mechanism here (of many), one that was only intended to be used in narrow instances, that assuaged pressure in one place (pre Trump) and added pressure in another (post Trump), but the fundamental problem were with GOP actions, candidates and policies.

Blaming Reid for Trump nominating terrible people and the Republicans roundly confirming them is neither logical nor convincing.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So what do you think Ried should have done Whembly? Let our government grind to a halt with nobody able to run it?

He answered. Obama should have reached an agreement with the guys who loudly and proudly claimed they were gonna block him at all costs.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521089304/congress-rolls-back-obama-era-rule-on-hunting-bears-and-wolves-in-alaska

How dare the government manage it's own lands! Or something. Because feth the environment amiright!

Trophy hunting is small manhood compensation at best and outright psychopathy at worst.

 feeder wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So what do you think Ried should have done Whembly? Let our government grind to a halt with nobody able to run it?

He answered. Obama should have reached an agreement with the guys who loudly and proudly claimed they were gonna block him at all costs.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521089304/congress-rolls-back-obama-era-rule-on-hunting-bears-and-wolves-in-alaska

How dare the government manage it's own lands! Or something. Because feth the environment amiright!

Trophy hunting is small manhood compensation at best and outright psychopathy at worst.

I take it you know little about actual hunting. I've never eaten wolf, but I have bear. It's a bit tough, but there are ways around that.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Whembly, regardless of whether or not Reid had a choice in the matter or what he did was right or wrong, Reid's role and the Fillibuster are secondary issues, they are neither the core problem nor would the absence of his actions have prevented everything today.

We had a senate and congress that refused to engage on almost anything purely for its own sake, and abused a mechanism meant for last ditch cases at every single opportunity.

It's like you haven't tried to read any of my responses...

However the GOP or Democrats wants to run the government is purely a political action. There are rules and procedures that both parties must abide by... regardless what people think may be unprecedented or unsavory.

The GOP being the 'stick in the mud' during Obama's tenure is purely their purview. Just like the current Democrats being the 'stick in the mud' now...

These are political actions for purely political reasons.

What's changed is that the rules for debate (the filibuster) by Reid. He took the easy way out and treated any notion of compromise as a bad thing. That's the basis of my criticism.

You're basically telling me that Reid and Obama couldn't reach across the aisle? If so, you're perpetuating the problem... you should be pressuring your elected officials to work together. Not oppose everything. Right now, and both parties are guilty of this, EVERYTHING is a scared cow.

How do you expect the sides to work together, when their sacred planks is untouchable?

With respect to Reid regarding the filibuster nominees, simply point out that the Gang of 14 arosed out of similar circumstances and could've been used as a template to foster cooperation.

The other alternative? Leave the filibuster in place and give the other party hell in the next election for being obstructionist.

We have a GOP now that is investing wholly unqualified people into positions of power and advocating for public policies that are quite frankly insane.

Those are the problems.

Blaming Reid for everything is both asinine and a deflection. Reid removed *one* mechanism here (of many), one that was only intended to be used in narrow instances, that assuaged pressure in one place (pre Trump) and added pressure in another (post Trump), but the fundamental problem were with GOP actions, candidates and policies.

I'm.Not.Blaming.Reid.For.Everything.

Many of the problems you've pointed out would've been mitigated with a fully armed, and operational minority filibuster powah. Do you deny this?

We can hem and haw over policy differences and whether or not 'x' appointee is a good idea or not. But, at the end of the day, elections has consequences.

Move on, remember how you were treated as the minority party, re-calibrate for the next election season. No one is stopping you or Democrats to compaign next year based on any issues you may have on the GOP, Trump and his cabinet members.

Blaming Reid for Trump nominating terrible people and the Republicans roundly confirming them is neither logical nor convincing.

Nor is ignoring the fact that 'The Reid Nuke Rule' gave Trump and the GOP moar power. I've stated since day one, that it was a massive mistake and still wholeheartedly believe that.

Bitch & moan all you want. Nothing will change until the next ballot.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So what do you think Ried should have done Whembly? Let our government grind to a halt with nobody able to run it?

He answered. Obama should have reached an agreement with the guys who loudly and proudly claimed they were gonna block him at all costs.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/22/521089304/congress-rolls-back-obama-era-rule-on-hunting-bears-and-wolves-in-alaska

How dare the government manage it's own lands! Or something. Because feth the environment amiright!

Trophy hunting is small manhood compensation at best and outright psychopathy at worst.

I take it you know little about actual hunting. I've never eaten wolf, but I have bear. It's a bit tough, but there are ways around that.

Trophy hunting and hunting for food are different things. I've eaten bear, it's ok. I prefer boar. I doubt you could eat wolf, carnivores make for terrible eating AFAIK.

Eating wolf? No thanks! Louis and Clark only ate 1 out of desperation and the hell out of dogs (190 total!). Most modern wolves are probably very reliant on scavenging and probably high in parasites and contaminants to boot.

Sport hunting varies from legit hunters who try for clean kills and actually strip the carcass to borderline poachers who cut heads and antlers. It's why it is regulated. Responsible hunters and fishers support preservation and intelligent regulation.

 jmurph wrote:
Eating wolf? No thanks! Louis and Clark only ate 1 out of desperation and the hell out of dogs (190 total!). Most modern wolves are probably very reliant on scavenging and probably high in parasites and contaminants to boot.

Sport hunting varies from legit hunters who try for clean kills and actually strip the carcass to borderline poachers who cut heads and antlers. It's why it is regulated. Responsible hunters and fishers support preservation and intelligent regulation.

Yup, and this is exactly why the BLM land sales didn't go through, because every single hunting/fishing group and environmentalist group came out against it. I have a good deal of respect for actual hunters, I don't really do it myself, but I have plenty of friends that do (and I get to skive venison off them, so it's nice ). Assuming they aren't the type of donkey-cave to hunt in land that isn't theirs and actually collect the carcass, not just leave it in the woods. But trophy hunting is disgusting, and helicopter hunting should be completely illegal. The only way i think trophy hunting should be allowed is if we make them hunt them with a spear.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Whembly, regardless of whether or not Reid had a choice in the matter or what he did was right or wrong, Reid's role and the Fillibuster are secondary issues, they are neither the core problem nor would the absence of his actions have prevented everything today.

We had a senate and congress that refused to engage on almost anything purely for its own sake, and abused a mechanism meant for last ditch cases at every single opportunity.

It's like you haven't tried to read any of my responses...

However the GOP or Democrats wants to run the government is purely a political action. There are rules and procedures that both parties must abide by... regardless what people think may be unprecedented or unsavory.

the problem is we've had one party actively working to sabotage the functioning of the government and then gone full bonkers once rewarded for doing so and the response is "well elections have consequences...deal with it" or "yeah they do bad stuff but only because you took away something when they were doing bad stuff previously" when pointing those issues out, which is not a particularly constructive position.

The GOP being the 'stick in the mud' during Obama's tenure is purely their purview. Just like the current Democrats being the 'stick in the mud' now...

These are political actions for purely political reasons.

What's changed is that the rules for debate (the filibuster) by Reid. He took the easy way out and treated any notion of compromise as a bad thing. That's the basis of my criticism.

You're basically telling me that Reid and Obama couldn't reach across the aisle? If so, you're perpetuating the problem... you should be pressuring your elected officials to work together. Not oppose everything. Right now, and both parties are guilty of this, EVERYTHING is a scared cow.

I'm not saying they couldnt have. The problem is that it was GOP policy from the highest levels to prevent any sort of cooperation. It doesnt matter if Obama is willing to reach across the isle if the other side isnt interested. Obama tried that at first and got burned for it. Not saying he couldnt have done better, he probably could, but lets be real, the GOP wasnt interested either, this was the party that has spent most of the last decade turning the word "Compromise" into a dirty word by their own admission.

How do you expect the sides to work together, when their sacred planks is untouchable?

Ultimately one side needs a come to jesus meeting with reality, and that making everything "Government" out to be evil for the last 30 years is not prudent public policy, just good opposition slogan.

With respect to Reid regarding the filibuster nominees, simply point out that the Gang of 14 arosed out of similar circumstances and could've been used as a template to foster cooperation.

Absolutely, but there was zero interest in such from what I can recall, and GOP policy from the top was incompatible with such an attempt.

Fundamentally this is not something the GOP was prepared to go for.

The other alternative? Leave the filibuster in place and give the other party hell in the next election for being obstructionist.

The problem is that the behavior has been rewarded and encouraged, elections have not proven to be the solution, particularly when such elections are designed in such a way as to promote the extremists over moderates, there is no electoral incentive here.

I'm.Not.Blaming.Reid.For.Everything.

you have however been making a pretty heavy case that its his fault for a lot of the irresponsible things the GOP is doing rather than it being fundamentally the GOP's fault for their own poor choices and policies.

Many of the problems you've pointed out would've been mitigated with a fully armed, and operational minority filibuster powah. Do you deny this?

No, I dont. However it would hardly have been a magic cure-all either, and was being unreasonably abused as well.

I think Reid should have kept it. I dont argue that...

But again, it's a secondary issue that would not have been a problem if one side had not abused it, and now uses its absence to put incompetent and unqualified people into high office.

We can hem and haw over policy differences and whether or not 'x' appointee is a good idea or not. But, at the end of the day, elections has consequences.

Move on, remember how you were treated as the minority party, re-calibrate for the next election season. No one is stopping you or Democrats to compaign next year based on any issues you may have on the GOP, Trump and his cabinet members.

I'm not a democrat, I'm not approaching this from the standpoint of being the minority party. Hell I voted for a write in for President and more Liberterians and independents in the last election than R's or D's (though did vote one of each for state offices).

I'm approaching this from the perspective of one major party being unappatizing but is at least serious about policy and governance while the other has gone off the ideological deep end and has gone full bonkers.

Nor is ignoring the fact that 'The Reid Nuke Rule' gave Trump and the GOP moar power. I've stated since day one, that it was a massive mistake and still wholeheartedly believe that.

Bitch & moan all you want. Nothing will change until the next ballot.

Not saying it will, only that the Reid Nuke thing is not the fundamental problem nor magic cure all it is being made out to be, and using that as an excuse for the GOP's poor choices is unconvincing.

@Vaktathi: I'm willing to concede that the GOP party in it's current state does have issues and is culpable to bad governance. I'm just a bit miffed at the whitewashing of the Democrat's own bad actions that many posters here have largely ignored. Hence why I bang on that Reid Rule drum so hard, because it had serious repercussions.

Hunting is about killing stuff for pleasure. No surprise there.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Hunting is about killing stuff for pleasure. No surprise there.

Erm... could I not feed my family from hunting?

Ahah sure, you could. You could also have internet in your cave! But somehow I am assuming that you live on a house or an apartment, and that you have a job that doesn't involve any hunting and that allows you to buy food in shops and markets.

 whembly wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Hunting is about killing stuff for pleasure. No surprise there.

Erm... could I not feed my family from hunting?

Only if you don't enjoy it, you sick bastard.

To clarify my earlier statement: I'm not against food hunting. Prey animals are tasty.

 whembly wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Hunting is about killing stuff for pleasure. No surprise there.

Erm... could I not feed my family from hunting?

Better get used to deer and what you can make with it. Deer jerkey, deer burgers, deer sausage, deer gumbo, deer stew, deer and potatoes, lemon deer, pineapple deer, pan fried deer, deep fried deer...that..thats about it

 whembly wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Hunting is about killing stuff for pleasure. No surprise there.

Erm... could I not feed my family from hunting?

You could I suppose, in the same way you could settle down a plot of land and start a small subsistence farm using pre-industrial methodology. However the vast majority of edible plants being planted & harvested by hand only by the member with simple tools by only the members of a single household probably falls under the umbrella of hobby gardening here in america. Similarly while blasting deer certainly can and has been a means of survival for people, here in america the vast majority of it is going to fall under a hobby. Something done for personal enjoyment, that may net you a freezer full of game meat as a nice treat. However in an age where cheap, mass produced factory farm meat can be purchased at dirt cheap prices and for minimal time & energy investment in most places folks hunting as a matter of survival is limited to a small number of edge cases.

"Hunting is about killing for pleasure" phrased in an oddly blunt way but probably applies pretty widely if not universally. Most folks going out of their way to hunt are probably doing it because they like the activity and it is about putting bullets (or arrows, whatever) into furry woodland creatures. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Well Chongara explained my views pretty well. Except for this

 Chongara wrote:
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'd say there is something mighty wrong with enjoying killing innocent creatures for fun and giggle. As opposed to the few people actually doing it because they don't have any real other way to survive decently. Those people are okay. But they are not you, I'd wager.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well Chongara explained my views pretty well. Except for this

 Chongara wrote:
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'd say there is something mighty wrong with enjoying killing innocent creatures for fun and giggle. As opposed to the few people actually doing it because they don't have any real other way to survive decently. Those people are okay. But they are not you, I'd wager.

Well I don't hunt. I don't have the patience or energy to wake up 3am and sit the forest waiting for a skittish running machine to cross my sights, and I've got no taste for weapons outside fiction. Shooting guns makes me feel uncomfortable and anxious. So my situation hardly factors in one way or the other.

That said I just don't personally having a problem with animals dying for human benefit, even relatively trivial ones. If I did I'd probably be going nearly full vegan. Animals suffer and die for lots of things I derive only minor benefit from. Steak is no matter of survival for me, I could easily live off many plant based items in my pantry right now. There are few reasons for me to eat meat other than that I enjoy it. So I don't see any place to be getting all high-mighty cause someone likes doing the dirty work themselves. Like if some guy just likes going out and shooting deer just so he can I dunno make lewd carvings out of the antlers how is that any different than me going down to KFC for a tasty heart attack bucket?

I mean guess if like you're like a full-blown super vegan, who hasn't so much been in a house where the drywall uses animal byproduct more power too ya. You can strut around any ol' high horse ya want, you've got standing for that. That said I think given overall state of society there isn't anyone in the mainstream with any place to be callin' out folks with a closets full of elmer fudd gear.