Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on January 03, 2007, 05:38:58 pm
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100784_pf.html
Really though, I am not sure this will fair well in the long run.
-
Well, ****.
Now we're right back to where we were before the elections: one party making all the legislation. Instead now the party making the legislation is telling the other to **** off instead of simply shutting them down in the vote.
Yeah, leave it to Nancy Pelosi to promise genuine cooperation in Congress, and then pull this sort of ****. I'll admit I agree with the Democrats on a lot of things, but never on their choices of leadership. Pelosi's too damned dividing, and this strategy proves it.
Why couldn't have the Dems picked a more moderate figure to be the Speaker?
-
Wow. They're intending to actually do something?
-
If they pass the **** they say they're going to pass, I'll be happy.
-
What ? They plan to do what they actually said before the election they would do ?!? The shock, the horror !!
-
If they pass the **** they say they're going to pass, I'll be happy.
They won't be able to. The first few bills they'll try to pass will be pure partisan bull****, which will then be vetoed by Bush, and then sent back to the Congress where the Democrats will need that 2/3 majority to override said veto.
...oh wait, they don't have a 2/3 majority. My bad.
You're such a genius, Nancy! :rolleyes:
-
Yes, but then Bush will veto, the republicans will stop it in it's tracks, which means the dems can play a good blame game.
-
True, but wasn't it their idea in the first place to shut the Republicans out? Basically, all that would happen is say that Pelosi is not even fit to be Speaker, and show that the Democratic leadership is not willing to allow bipartisan cooperation in Congress.
The Republicans might get burnt in vetoing the legislation, but the Democrats should get it worse for doing de jure what the Republicans did de facto in the first six years of the administration.
Arrogant Democratic dumbasses.
-
At least they're honest about it.
-
Well, honest or not, I've recently lost a whole lot of faith in the Democrats, but not gained any in the Republicans. Both parties tend to be ****; the Republicans are overrun by the neoconservatives rather than the true conservatives that I identify with, and the Democrats are all ridden with revenge-driven, childlike leaders who would rather play "see how you like it" than do what the American people want them to: fix this country.
-
I want to form a political party.
-
Amen.
-
I want to form a political party.
No need, join the Libertarian Party.
-
If they had balls, the Democrats would vote down the next Iraq funding bill that Bush tried to pass. Instead they're going to twiddle their thumbs as Bush sends more troops in.
And all these "threats" to sideline the GOP will amount to nothing. Don't worry America, you vaunted bipartisanship is intact: everyone was for the war when the Republicans controlled Congress and somehow, despite all the election bull****, everyone is still for it now. See? One big happy family.
-
I want to form a political party.
No need, join the Libertarian Party.
Personally, I'd like to join a political party thats capable of doing something.
-
I want to form a political party.
No need, join the Libertarian Party.
Personally, I'd like to join a political party thats capable of doing something.
Which will be my party. Wanna join?
-
I didn't bother reading the article, because I already know that anything involving the U.S. goverment will end badly.
-
I didn't bother reading the article, because I already know that anything involving the U.S. goverment will end badly.
So simple, yet so true.
-
I'd just like to maintain that I think two party systems are a very bad idea. Although we don't have a completely multiparty system in Canada (its basically Liberals and Conservatives) the politics tend to keep things rolling with four major parties holding seats, and for the moment, making things interesting for the minority government. But down south, with two parties, you seem to get stuck...both parties seem to be basically the same except for the legislation they want to introduce which is either hard one way or hard the other way and they seem to be very much intent with pissing the other off and not doing much else.
There is no majority/minority system down there. If we had an election like you did in 2000 and 2004...and actually we did last year...you'd have the Republicans in this theoretical parliamentary system tiptoeing around because they would need support from at least part of another party in order to put through any legislation. Otherwise they would face non-confidence and the government would fall for re-election.
Just my view...I know parliamentary style isn't perfect either but I feel you get to wash the stale bread out of the government a bit more.
-
I personally like the multiparty system, but it's become impossible in America given the way elections are set up. Instead of this winner-takes-all system where one person gets voted in out of an entire district, leaving whatever minority, no matter how large, without representation, we need to have more like what parliamentary systems have.
I disagree with just about every other aspect of parliamentary style though. Just my opinion, but I personally think the US style is the best that it's gotten so far with dee-moe-krazy.
-
Yeah, you really don't want a parliamentary system. Although, it can make for some really entertaining arguements in televised sessions. Nothing quite like having the people that run your country throwing around insults and bullying weaker politicians as if they're all back in high-school.
-
Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.
See I saw 'first hundred days of legislation' when I read that.
-
They won't be able to. The first few bills they'll try to pass will be pure partisan bull****, which will then be vetoed by Bush, and then sent back to the Congress where the Democrats will need that 2/3 majority to override said veto.
...oh wait, they don't have a 2/3 majority. My bad.
You're such a genius, Nancy! :rolleyes:
...tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.
I'm not sure what you mean by "partisan". They certainly cover some hot-button issues, but as the article points out, these are all bills that have spent plenty of time in the legislative digestive tract. It's not as if the Democrats suddenly lept to their feet and said, "LET'S SUBSIDIZE METH AND NOT LET THE REPUBLICANS GIVE INPUT ROFLMAO!" I'm not saying Bush won't veto them, but I don't have a problem with them trying.
-
It's not as if the Democrats suddenly lept to their feet and said, "LET'S SUBSIDIZE METH AND NOT LET THE REPUBLICANS GIVE INPUT ROFLMAO!"
It's not what they're saying, but it's certainly what some people are hearing.
-
anyone who doesnt support those ethics reform measures should have an investigation launched to see just how much they are getting from the lobbyists and from which ones.
lobbying is the real problem with american politics. electing representatives doesnt mean **** when theyre bought by major corporations.
-
anyone who doesnt support those ethics reform measures should have an investigation launched to see just how much they are getting from the lobbyists and from which ones.
lobbying is the real problem with american politics. electing representatives doesnt mean **** when theyre bought by major corporations.
QFT
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "partisan". They certainly cover some hot-button issues, but as the article points out, these are all bills that have spent plenty of time in the legislative digestive tract. It's not as if the Democrats suddenly lept to their feet and said, "LET'S SUBSIDIZE METH AND NOT LET THE REPUBLICANS GIVE INPUT ROFLMAO!" I'm not saying Bush won't veto them, but I don't have a problem with them trying.
That's not my point.
The fact is that the Democrats are proceeding in attempting to pass this legislation in a method that embarrasses democracy and our government as a whole. What the Republicans did de facto in the first six years the Democrats are trying to do de jure. I agree that the legislation isn't horrible, but if it's not controversial, then why block the Republicans in the first place? The new government was intended to ensure debate and examination of legislation before it gets passed, not for the Democrats to exact revenge.
Fine way to ensure bipartisan cooperation, Dems, completely shutting out the minority in Congress. They've now bought themselves plenty of partisan bickering over the next two years.
-
But that was my point. This legislation has been examined. There's nothing surprising here. The Democrats are exercising what can be called either shrewdness, if one supports their agenda, or cheap tactics, if one does not. The idea of bipartisan cooperation sounds just fabulous, but it glosses over the fact that there are ideologies butting heads, and nobody really thinks that cooperation is more important than seeing their own cause advanced as far as possible. If the tables were turned right now, I would be complaining. C'est la vie.
-
A Congress is usually judged by it's first 100 days of legislation. I'm sure that once the Democrats get over their election promises push (minimum wage increase, etc), they'll be more open to bipartisanship. But in the meantime, they want to get their agenda done and get it done fast, and they can't do that if they start bickering with the GOP.
-
That's what I said, although a lot shorter ;)
Usually it's 100 days to push through what they want and THEN they start *****ing.
-
Outside of the really popular measures, I doubt they will agree on anything. For example, social security, labor unions etc.
Personally, minimum wage is a mute point as many states already have a higher minimum wage laws than the federal law.
Regaurdless, if they are feigning bipartisanship, soon enough the attitude will prevail that we won they election and therefore no one else's opinion matters.
-
True, but wasn't it their idea in the first place to shut the Republicans out? Basically, all that would happen is say that Pelosi is not even fit to be Speaker, and show that the Democratic leadership is not willing to allow bipartisan cooperation in Congress.
The Republicans might get burnt in vetoing the legislation, but the Democrats should get it worse for doing de jure what the Republicans did de facto in the first six years of the administration.
Arrogant Democratic dumbasses.
Well, the GOP did the same thing for 12 YEARS, and I wasn't hearing a lot of complaints from you over it.
The point is that a lot of this legislation is what they said they were going to do, and the Republicans would do their best to sink it. This is the only way for them to do, surprise, exactly what they said they were going to do.
-
That's another big thing. People voted for the Democrats knowing full what their stance is on the issues, and what they planned to do. The majority of people probably now expect them to do that. You can't fault the democrats for following up on their campaign promises.
If they let the GOP in, they'd only get bogged down and their promises would go out the window - and they would be labeled as weak. Then the GOP would tear them apart.
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, but I think the Dems are doing what needs to be done and I agree with it.
EDIT: And red: minimum wage is not a moot point. There are still a lot of states that are running on the $5 minimum wage - a federal mandate would benefit EVERYONE, not just a few states.
-
On minimum wage:
I question the effects that it would also have on local economies. An increase in minimum wage also means an inflation in prices as well. There are some arguments out there that small business will be affected negatively. Keep in mind that a lot of growth in the US economy is a result of entrepreneurship, small business.
On the election:
I am not sure that people really voted knowing what the democrats were planning. I honestly think that they won the election not on issues, but on a protest vote over Iraq. Hell they won the senate over corruption and Muccaca. Secondly, the Democrats also won by having mainly moderate and conservative canidates as well.
-
If they had balls, the Democrats would vote down the next Iraq funding bill that Bush tried to pass. Instead they're going to twiddle their thumbs as Bush sends more troops in.
They'd be ****ing stupid to do that. It would give the Republicans a year to blame the democrats refusal to send in more troops as the cause for Iraq getting worse. And in a country where 1 in 3 people think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 you can always count on the stupidity of the American electorate to buy it.
The problem with American politics is that it's gotten to the stage where nothing is actually being done based on what is good for the country. It's all being done on what you can get the sheep-like electorate to believe. That's always been a significant factor in politics but in America it's starting to look like it's the only factor.
-
Second day in and they've already passed a major bill:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070105/ap_on_go_co/congress_rdp_49
The thing is, as noted before, the Democrats are made up mostly of moderate to conservative dems - a sharp contrast from the now-infamous conservative Republican that made up most of the past few years. I think they will be able to get a lot more bipartisan votes than the Republicans were able to, at least, if they play their cards right.
-
What ? They plan to do what they actually said before the election they would do ?!? The shock, the horror !!
:LOL:
-
On a semi-related topic; Bush's new war plan. What's the deal with that? Almost everyone is telling him not to increase troop levels, most of the senators are, and on top of that, so are his generals. So what does he do? Get rid of the naysaying generals and plan to do it anyway!
-
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm
So they declare that they are going to have a 5 day work week with monday being a holiday everyweek? I wonder if this counts as part of their first 100 hours :lol:
-
Shouldn't you be screaming with joy? Afterall from your point of view it should be one less day of evil liberal legislation each week.
-
Well, I am reserving judgement to see if they actually can pull off what they say. But, from the looks of it, they arn't having too stellar of a job.