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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oh, so just because you know you are going to fail, or just think you might fail, means you should just abandon your ideals and doing what your constituents want.

Yes, when you know beyond any doubt that you are going to fail you should not keep smashing your head against the wall thinking that this time will be different. You either stick to your ideas and try a new approach, or concede defeat and work on accomplishing some of the other things your constituents want.

And you should never pass a bill without a veto-proof majority behind it, because failing is unacceptable and wasting everyone's time so we shouldn't ever do that.

Do you understand the difference between passing a bill you're not sure about and passing a bill that you know will be vetoed?

Do you understand how ridiculous what you are saying sounds? You are flat out saying that elected officials should disregard what their constituents want if there is major opposition, which is moronic on its face.

Passing legislation through the House and Senate is how laws are created and changed in this country. You're acting like there is some other way which they should be using.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

And you should never pass a bill without a veto-proof majority behind it, because failing is unacceptable and wasting everyone's time so we shouldn't ever do that.

And its not like the Democrats aren't also being just as stubborn and obstinate about things too you know.

No... you should pass bills. However, when you pass a bill that you already know, before ever voting on it, that it will fail is unacceptable and a waste of time.

So standing up for your principles should never be done?

 Grey Templar wrote:

So standing up for your principles should never be done?

Standing for principles, yes... But that's the problem, this isn't a principled stance. "Obama sucks!" isn't a principle. "A person who works 40 hours a week shouldn't be in poverty" is a principle, just as "we should work to protect the environment and improve the economy" is as well.

"Obama sucks" and "we're gonna do the opposite of what HE did" are basically a big feth you.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Do you understand how ridiculous what you are saying sounds? You are flat out saying that elected officials should disregard what their constituents want if there is major opposition, which is moronic on its face.

Passing legislation through the House and Senate is how laws are created and changed in this country. You're acting like there is some other way which they should be using.

There is a difference between major opposition and having zero chance of success.

So standing up for your principles should never be done?

Not when you're being paid to govern the country instead of making cheap publicity stunts about your "principles". Not that they really are principles, of course, or the republicans would be willing to negotiate instead of just attempting the same doomed strategy over and over again. But that would mean a lot of work and sacrifice, as well as the end of the easy "vote for us to stop Obamacare" vote-earning scheme they've got now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

So standing up for your principles should never be done?

Standing for principles, yes... But that's the problem, this isn't a principled stance. "Obama sucks!" isn't a principle. "A person who works 40 hours a week shouldn't be in poverty" is a principle, just as "we should work to protect the environment and improve the economy" is as well.

"Obama sucks" and "we're gonna do the opposite of what HE did" are basically a big feth you.

Wanting to remove a terrible and detrimental piece of legislation is a principled stance IMO. Obamacare is really a monstrosity that both sides should be wanting to burn ASAP. But the Democrats aren't willing to do that because they'd rather have a terrible bill just so they can say they have a "universal healthcare" merit badge. At least Republicans are trying to do the right thing.

Maybe if Democrats made the first move and made some reasonable demands in exchange for removing Obamacare a discussion could start.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe if Democrats made the first move and made some reasonable demands in exchange for removing Obamacare a discussion could start.

Why does the discussion have to start with the people saying "let's not change anything" making an offer to change things? Why shouldn't the burden of making a convincing offer fall on the people who actually want to change the situation?

Because the first compromise is always made by the reacting individual.

A(Dems) has a Cake.

B(Repubs) walks up and says "I want your cake".

Now its A's turn to either say "No, you cannot have my cake" or offer a compromise like "I'll give you my cake if you give me your Pie".

 Grey Templar wrote:
Now its A's turn to either say "No, you cannot have my cake" or offer a compromise like "I'll give you my cake if you give me your Pie".

And A has said "no you can not have my cake" already. Many times, in fact. So if B wants to continue the discussion in a constructive manner instead of just making a big show of screaming "GIVE ME YOUR CAKE!!!!" over and over again they need to make A an offer to change their mind.

Given that the Republicans have enough of a majority to pass legislation removing Obamacare, I think that there is less need for compromise anyway. They may be able to just take the cake soon anyway.

If anything, it would be stupid for Dems to not compromise now and try to get something out of it before they possibly get no say in the matter. Just like how they rammed Obamacare down everyone's throats they may soon find it taken away in a similar manner.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that the Republicans have enough of a majority to pass legislation removing Obamacare, I think that there is less need for compromise anyway. They'll be able to just take the cake soon anyway.

So now you're assuming they're going to win the presidential election in 2016? That's a pretty bold claim when Trump is currently leading the polls, with a guy who thinks the pyramids are grain silos in second place.

And this just highlights how much of a waste of time this latest attempt at repealing the law was. If you're expecting to win in 2016 then what exactly is the point of making a symbolic statement (which has zero chance of success) now? Why not focus on other issues until you get your chance to repeal Obamacare in a year or so? The answer of course is that this wasn't a legitimate attempt to repeal the law, it was a publicly-funded campaign speech for everyone involved.

Neither Trump nor Carson are going to get the nomination. They'll drop off eventually.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Neither Trump nor Carson are going to get the nomination. They'll drop off eventually.

So who is it going to be then? Cruz, who is proud to be endorsed by and appear on-stage with a "gay people should be executed" preacher? One of the generic mainstream candidates who are so bland and underwhelming that they can't even out-poll Trump? Let's face it, Trump is winning right now for pretty obvious reasons.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Neither Trump nor Carson are going to get the nomination. They'll drop off eventually.

So who is it going to be then? Cruz, who is proud to be endorsed by and appear on-stage with a "gay people should be executed" preacher? One of the generic mainstream candidates who are so bland and underwhelming that they can't even out-poll Trump? Let's face it, Trump is winning right now for pretty obvious reasons.

Cruz isn't even an american, show me the birth certificate!

so I guess it's up to Marco Rubio.

If I had to pick now its going to be Bush, but its still way to early to tell who its going to be. Its not too early to say who it almost certainly will not be.

How do we know trump and carson are going to drop out? Saying it won't make it so? and don't say experience or any variation of without providing examples from "experience"

Jeb Bush has a major likability problem. Also he's a bush, part of the dynasty full of some of the worst presidents in U.S. History. Also, he completely ed up florida's educational system, among other things.

Rubio has been associated with the kill the gays crowd and the crazy anti-abortion crowd. He is going to have electability issues among independents.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, so just because you have no chance for success means you shouldn't do what you got voted into office to do?

Do you know what the definition of insanity is?

 Grey Templar wrote:


Wanting to remove a terrible and detrimental piece of legislation is a principled stance IMO. Obamacare is really a monstrosity that both sides should be wanting to burn ASAP. But the Democrats aren't willing to do that because they'd rather have a terrible bill just so they can say they have a "universal healthcare" merit badge. At least Republicans are trying to do the right thing.

1. It most definitely is not detrimental.

2. I agree that it was terribly written, but "burning it" isn't a solution. Congress needs to sit down like they adults they are supposed to fething be and and get a better piece of legislation on the table.

3. Republicans most definitely are NOT trying to do the "right" thing here.

As a Brit, as far as I can tell you guys have two choices: Trump or Clinton.

Personally, I'd rather Trump won. Clinton was a security risk even out of the Presidential Office and all she does is lie on camera.

 nullBolt wrote:

Personally, I'd rather Trump won. Clinton was a security risk even out of the Presidential Office and all she does is lie on camera.

The realistic winner will be clinton.... IMO, the "best" choice is Sanders.


The absolute worst choice?? Well, take your pick, pretty much any of the Republican side give plenty of reasons why they SHOULDNT be POTUS.

EDIT: For a case in point example of why Trump would seriously be the worst possible, I'd invite you to google his remarks about a "Muslim registration" The dude is basically a taller, overweight, with a bad hair-piece version of Hitler.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The realistic winner will be clinton.... IMO, the "best" choice is Sanders.

The absolute worst choice?? Well, take your pick, pretty much any of the Republican side give plenty of reasons why they SHOULDNT be POTUS.

EDIT: For a case in point example of why Trump would seriously be the worst possible, I'd invite you to google his remarks about a "Muslim registration" The dude is basically a taller, overweight, with a bad hair-piece version of Hitler.

I think Clinton would be the worst choice. Look at her voting history. Completely anti-gay up until it became necessary not to be. She destroyed evidence after there was an enquiry into her private emails. The only reason she stands a chance of being a candidate is because she's married to Bill Clinton. And, again, her platform is mostly lies.

There's no chance of Sanders getting in. The only thing Sanders can do is go independent and kill off Clinton's support.

On the Muslim registration thing: It's already a thing. A lot of Muslims in Europe are under as much surveillance as possible because they visit "radicalised" Mosques.

I don't know if politicsusa.com is a respected news/opinion site or not

but according to this article: http://www.politicususa.com/2015/12/03/senate-republicans-vote-terrorists-legally-buy-guns.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The Senate Republicans blocked a bill to prevent suspects on the terror watch list from legally purchasing guns

I'm confused

You could make the argument that a suspect is just that - a suspect, and that they should still have all the legal rights they are entitled too,

but in light of what's been happening recently....it's very strange...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't know if politicsusa.com is a respected news/opinion site or not

but according to this article: http://www.politicususa.com/2015/12/03/senate-republicans-vote-terrorists-legally-buy-guns.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The Senate Republicans blocked a bill to prevent suspects on the terror watch list from legally purchasing guns

I'm confused

You could make the argument that a suspect is just that - a suspect, and that they should still have all the legal rights they are entitled too,

but in light of what's been happening recently....it's very strange...

The only thing that was strange was the fact that Obama had the audacity to call for that blatantly unconstitutional gak legislation in the first place. US citizens are entitled to due process, period. There is no constitutional way to legislate that away based on being on some super secret bullgak list. That was a horrible govt over reach and it deserved to be slapped down as harshly and decisively as possible.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

And you should never pass a bill without a veto-proof majority behind it, because failing is unacceptable and wasting everyone's time so we shouldn't ever do that.

And its not like the Democrats aren't also being just as stubborn and obstinate about things too you know.

No... you should pass bills. However, when you pass a bill that you already know, before ever voting on it, that it will fail is unacceptable and a waste of time.

Not true. There is a lot to value to forcing the congress critters to take a vote. Their votes can come back to haunt them come primary time and in the main election. Both parties use these votes.

The simple fact that the House just passed a binon-partisan education bill that was stripped of most of what the supposed Republican constituency wants in an ed Bill (I.e. vouchers) shod show people that they can reach across the aisle when the mood strikes them.

I didn't have a problem with the idea of blocking people on the no-fly list from buying guns, the problem for me was that the no-fly list is a clusterfeth with all kinds of people being on the list for no real reason and with people who have similar names still being affected because they are "on the list".

Even a good idea is terrible when it is build on a cracking foundation.

 d-usa wrote:
I didn't have a problem with the idea of blocking people on the no-fly list from buying guns, the problem for me was that the no-fly list is a clusterfeth with all kinds of people being on the list for no real reason and with people who have similar names still being affected because they are "on the list".

Even a good idea is terrible when it is build on a cracking foundation.

The fact that US citizens can be denied due process and be put on the useless unconstitutional bullgak security theater No Fly List is abhorrent. The list itself never should have been created in the first place. Doubling down on it and imposing even more unconstitutional restrictions and revocations of protected rights is an even worse idea.

Honestly, isn't the 'No Fly List' nothing but an admission that TSA screening is a failure and a waste? Are we supposed to believe the folks on it are so cunning and smart they can defeat the security measures? If so, I submit ANYONE who wants to can defeat the security measures. And clearly, since NONE of the mass shootings involve people who were on the list, the list does not include the right people.

And the MUCH larger (over 700k) terror watch list is just as worthless. If they have enough info they can get warrants, collect evidence and prosecute.

 CptJake wrote:
Honestly, isn't the 'No Fly List' nothing but an admission that TSA screening is a failure and a waste?

Well you might catch them when they aren't trying to smuggle anything onboard the plane. Not a good reason, but a reason nonetheless.

I just find it damn hysterical that when everyone dog piled on Trump for suggesting to have Muslims "on a watch list".... and, many of those same critics want to use these "terror watch list" to deprive Americans of their rights without due process.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Honestly, isn't the 'No Fly List' nothing but an admission that TSA screening is a failure and a waste?

Well you might catch them when they aren't trying to smuggle anything onboard the plane. Not a good reason, but a reason nonetheless.

What do you mean 'catch'? If you show up at the airport and are on the list, nothing happens to you except they won't let you on a flight. Inclusion on the list is not grounds for detention nor arrest.

 CptJake wrote:
Honestly, isn't the 'No Fly List' nothing but an admission that TSA screening is a failure and a waste?

CptJake, I am frankly upset by your unfair characterization of the TSA. Just because they're absolute gak, doesn't mean it's a failure!