Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V

[popper]

It never ceases to amaze me how our reps and media manipulate the public with debates and policies that don't address the real causes of our problems. Wasn't this whole process supposed to address/prevent future mass slaughter like the one that happened in Conn.?

I've heard both parties say that the background check legislation wouldn't have prevented the Conn. slaughter and others like it. If that's true, why not go back to the drawing room and create legislation that would? I thought that was supposed to be the point of this whole exercise.

[pineappleheadindc]

.

LOL - Zonker, are you being sarcastic or is your post real?

Just in case it isn't sarcastic....

Here is the vote.. It went 54-46 IN FAVOR of background checks. But the filibuster threshold is 60 votes.

4 Dems voted against background checks + Harry Reid voted against it for procedural reasons only after it was clear it would lose (under Parlamentary rules, it allows him to bring the item up for a vote again). So those five Dems plus the 54 in favor of background checks still didn't clear the 60 vote threshold.

"FRICKING COWARDLY DEMOCRATS" didn't kill background checks.

Of course, I'm thinking that you already know this and your post, above, is satire. Right?

Well, I read the same data and come to a completely different conclusion. The Dems needed a united front in order to defeat the filibuster. They should be able to on background checks, which everybody agrees with. But the defection of four Dems senators destroyed any chance of beating the filibuster. Shameful lack of party discipline on an issue that 90% of people agree with.

Zonk, you know I love ya. But that's just laughable.



If you advocate FOR background checks, the blue votes are your friend. Democrats held 90% of their caucus and provided 90% of the for votes. But somehow the folks who provided 90% of the against votes are not held responsible for the non-passage.

It would appear to me that you're going out of your way to ignore Occam's razor, my friend.

[pineappleheadindc]

I much, much, much prefer that Obama completely fail to reach an agreement, than agree to what the Republicans want.

I do get frustrated that in areas where Obama should be able to get an easy win he loses. But I blame the democratic party for being fractured and weak and incompetent. I don't blame Obama.

Zonk, it isn't about what republicans want it's leveraging the vast power a president has via the media to FORCE compromise via the public, while maintaining an approachable demeanor to senators.

Delicate balancing act, but various presidents in my lifetime have done it eloquently with integrity.

Also the analogy of CEO to President is indeed valid, please re-read my posts instead of immediately dismissing. The tone of cooperation, ultimate responsibility etc....all eyes go to the leader.

In my eyes he's a massive failure, his administration has accomplished near nothing in 5 years other than having everyone hate each other and a refusal to cooperate.

To quote a few of you "it takes two to tango".

Happy to see the sequester in full effect though. Honestly there needs to be a much larger one and cut defense, spending for the poor etc....so obvious it's frustrating.

Nope, you haven't convinced me. You're still wrong.

And because you haven't brought me over to your side, Indu, it's YOUR fault for lack of leadership.

(See how easy that was?)

[Induveca]

I much, much, much prefer that Obama completely fail to reach an agreement, than agree to what the Republicans want.

I do get frustrated that in areas where Obama should be able to get an easy win he loses. But I blame the democratic party for being fractured and weak and incompetent. I don't blame Obama.

Zonk, it isn't about what republicans want it's leveraging the vast power a president has via the media to FORCE compromise via the public, while maintaining an approachable demeanor to senators.

Delicate balancing act, but various presidents in my lifetime have done it eloquently with integrity.

Also the analogy of CEO to President is indeed valid, please re-read my posts instead of immediately dismissing. The tone of cooperation, ultimate responsibility etc....all eyes go to the leader.

In my eyes he's a massive failure, his administration has accomplished near nothing in 5 years other than having everyone hate each other and a refusal to cooperate.

To quote a few of you "it takes two to tango".

Happy to see the sequester in full effect though. Honestly there needs to be a much larger one and cut defense, spending for the poor etc....so obvious it's frustrating.

Nope, you haven't convinced me. You're still wrong.

And because you haven't brought me over to your side, Indu, it's YOUR fault for lack of leadership.

(See how easy that was?)

Agree to disagree. You didn't elect me.

[pineappleheadindc]

Republicans didn't elect Obama.

[popper]

Here's another tidbit of gun control legislation to consider.


...The bigger story, however, is that Obama's signature proposal, a ban on assault weapons and extended magazines, was overwhelmingly rejected by the Senate. Fifteen Democrats opposed the long-sought gun control measure. By a vote of 40-60, the Senate rejected the Feinstein amendment banning military-style assault weapons. Virtually every Democrat facing reelection next year in a competitive state voted against the measure.

CO Sen. Mike Bennett, who is leading the Democrats' election efforts in 2014, voted against the ban. His colleague, liberal Sen. Mark Udall, who is up for reelection next year in CO, also voted against the measure.

It isn't surprising that red state Democrats like Sens. Pryor, Begich, Landrieu, Baucus and Hagan voted against the measure. It is more surprising however that Maine Sen. Angus King, both Dems from New Mexico, and VA Sen. Mark Warner also voted against the measure. The Democrats voting against the assault weapons' ban represent almost one-third of the entire Dem caucus. Only GOP Sen. Mark Kirk crossed the aisle to support the ban.

This is not just a failure of President Obama and Vice-President Biden, but a devastating setback for their fledgling Organizing for Action.........

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... rol-agenda

[dobrojim]

Indu appears to be ignoring the impact of gerrymandering and special interest money
politics when considering the ability of a Pres to sway members of the leg branch
to come over to his side, the personal animus of a large portion of the elected GOP
and the power of the RIGHT WING MEDIA. Yeah I said it. Actually lazy media would
be more accurate but the media is largely owned by huge corporations and that
has a major impact on the stories that are covered as well as the way what is
covered is discussed ie the bounds of acceptability.

(CNN) We'll have to leave it there...

or

Fox who's viewers are measurably more misinformed than viewers of other networks.

[dobrojim]

gun owners hear average people talk and they know that 'we'
DO want to take away their guns. What they don't understand
is that their long term interest probably lie more in acceding
to reasonable widely agreed upon regulations. In stonewalling
that which widespread majorities of people from both parties agree
on, when their time comes, they are likely to lose much worse
then they might imagine now.

One thing we need to remember is that the debate is being
driven by people who's livelihood depends on the continuation
and expansion of gun ownership among the citizenship broadly.
And that lobby has been shameless in lying about everything
having to do with the subject.

[Zonkerbl]

.

LOL - Zonker, are you being sarcastic or is your post real?

Just in case it isn't sarcastic....

Here is the vote.. It went 54-46 IN FAVOR of background checks. But the filibuster threshold is 60 votes.

4 Dems voted against background checks + Harry Reid voted against it for procedural reasons only after it was clear it would lose (under Parlamentary rules, it allows him to bring the item up for a vote again). So those five Dems plus the 54 in favor of background checks still didn't clear the 60 vote threshold.

"FRICKING COWARDLY DEMOCRATS" didn't kill background checks.

Of course, I'm thinking that you already know this and your post, above, is satire. Right?

Well, I read the same data and come to a completely different conclusion. The Dems needed a united front in order to defeat the filibuster. They should be able to on background checks, which everybody agrees with. But the defection of four Dems senators destroyed any chance of beating the filibuster. Shameful lack of party discipline on an issue that 90% of people agree with.

Zonk, you know I love ya. But that's just laughable.



If you advocate FOR background checks, the blue votes are your friend. Democrats held 90% of their caucus and provided 90% of the for votes. But somehow the folks who provided 90% of the against votes are not held responsible for the non-passage.

It would appear to me that you're going out of your way to ignore Occam's razor, my friend.

Yeah, see, that just proves my point. Had all the Democrats voted for the bill, they would only have had to convince ONE REPUBLICAN to change his vote. I can expect that Reid or Obama or SOMEBODY would be able to make a deal with that one Republican holdout. But because of the lack of discipline in the party, on this RIDICULOUSLY POPULAR MEASURE THAT 90% OF PEOPLE AGREE WITH, they ended up having to convince four Republicans - astronomically more difficult.

Remember the vote for CAFTA? Bush and the Republicans were able to force it through largely because of their fierce party discipline, which the Dems lack.

[pineappleheadindc]

90% of dems voted for it.

That actually (coincidentally) reflects the approval rating of the background check (90%). I could make the argument that Dems voted in concert with the country. No?

[Induveca]

90% of dems voted for it.

That actually (coincidentally) reflects the approval rating of the background check (90%). I could make the argument that Dems voted in concert with the country. No?

Pine your democratic loyalties are honestly so fierce.....you won't even admit that convincing one person on the other side of the aisle is easier than 5?

Just admit both sides are the problem, my point is in doing that the "leader kfthe free world" ultimately takes the fall.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

[pineappleheadindc]

I don't get it out of math

One side votes for a bill with 90% of its members.
One side votes for the bill with 10% of its members.

But you're gonna blame the side that mustered 90% of its members toward and end? But the side that mustered 10% of its members is blameless?

Is THAT what you are saying?

[pineappleheadindc]

.

I just want to ensure that I'm understanding your position. See illustration, below:





If that's correct, then yeah, I don't get that at all.

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, pretty much. The Republicans have demonstrated massive party discipline over the last several years, so you have to assume they will not cooperate. We KNOW (or should know, by now) that the only way to get anything done on a Dem issue is to get 100% cooperation from the Dems (which the Republicans do ALL THE TIME, even for controversial issues!) to reduce the number of Republicans you have to deal with -- and McCain was ALREADY ON THE RECORD AS VOTING FOR IT. In the end, FIVE republicans voted for it -- AND THE DEMS STILL FAILED!!! If you can't even match the Republicans' ability to achieve party discipline, how are you supposed to accomplish anything?

Gun control is a liberal issue. A Dem issue. 90% of EVERYBODY (not just Democrats) agree with it. ANYTHING LESS THAN 100% of DEMS VOTING FOR AN ISSUE LIKE THAT IS AN ABJECT FAILURE BY THE DEMOCRATS.

Why should I blame the Republicans for voting against a Dem issue? Haven't I consistently pegged the Republicans as being the party captured by the wealthy elite? Why would I expect anything else but a vote reflecting their true colors?

[pineappleheadindc]

Because 90 percent means its no longer a liberal issue. 90 percent means that it's also aconservative issue.

[Zonkerbl]

Sez you. Chowderhead.

[pineappleheadindc]

Sez you. Chowderhead.

Lol, you win. I yield and bow to you.

[popper]

Combine 91% of New York residents in favor vs. 89% of Wyoming residents against and you will probably arrive at 90% in favor. We must not forget we live in a Constitutional Republic.

[fishercob]

Combine 91% of New York residents in favor vs. 89% of Wyoming residents against and you will probably arrive at 90% in favor. We must not forget we live in a Constitutional Republic.

By your logic it's still bi-partisan issue . 36% of New York voters -- some 2.2M people -- cast votes for Romney in November. That's 5 times as many people that voted for either candidate in Montana.

[popper]

Combine 91% of New York residents in favor vs. 89% of Wyoming residents against and you will probably arrive at 90% in favor. We must not forget we live in a Constitutional Republic.

By your logic it's still bi-partisan issue . 36% of New York voters -- some 2.2M people -- cast votes for Romney in November. That's 5 times as many people that voted for either candidate in Montana.

I'm not sure I follow you Fish. The point I was trying to make is that even if 90% of the public support something it doesn't follow that an individual state (especially smaller ones) majority would support it. Therefore their reps, D or R, could very well vote against the wishes of the 90% general support and instead vote in support of a small (but majority) number within their own state.