Republicans and anyone is a problem because republicans no longer believe in compromise. Their version is you agree with us, we make no concessions. Compromise!
Compromise is not always possible. Sometimes the issue is so important to either party that it is seen as an ass raping.
If you asked me if it would be ok to stick your dick in my ass and I answered no asking me if it would be ok to only stick it in halfway would not be a valid attempt at compromise.
@Lou- no, I do not agree that what you quoted constitutes compromise.
@Muppet - I would also love to see the social-cons marginalized and removed from the Republican decision making groups.
Republicans and anyone is a problem because republicans no longer believe in compromise. Their version is you agree with us, we make no concessions. Compromise!
Compromise is not always possible. Sometimes the issue is so important to either party that it is seen as an ass raping.
If you asked me if it would be ok to stick your dick in my ass and I answered no asking me if it would be ok to only stick it in halfway would not be a valid attempt at compromise.
Right but for Congressional Republicans this past two years this has been everything, including raising the debt ceiling which cost us our international credit rating and was a typical administrative/maintenance function that literally happens multiple times per month under every administration until Obama's. That goes beyond strong feelings and into deliberate shenanigans, by a wide margin.
Republicans and anyone is a problem because republicans no longer believe in compromise. Their version is you agree with us, we make no concessions. Compromise!
@Lou- no, I do not agree that what you quoted constitutes compromise.
Ahem...
Re: Obama working with Republicans:
What has Obama compromised on where Republicans got what they actually wanted and not just thwarted what Obama wanted? Because there is a difference.
Steve, are we counting ideas put forward by republicans who when democrats pursued them they suddenly were against them?
No. We are counting ideas where Dems say X and Repubs say Y and Y ended up happening.
So far Bush tax cuts extension is only one.
Explain those statements then, as it certainly appears that you view "compromise" as meaning "cave in to the GOP's demands."
Here is an idea that would probably receive more cries of "assrape" from Dems than Repubs.
Lets just say for arguments sake that after serious research and study we find that in order to fix the deficit we need 2/3 spending cuts and 1/3 tax increases. Let the Democrats choose where the tax increases go and Republicans choose the spending cuts. Include some basic protections so that neither side can impact any one thing/group by X% (no cutting an agency into non existance or taxing one group into the poorer house) and then vote it up or down.
While Republicans have been very anal sensitive over the last two years they did win the house on a "stop Obama" platform.
Hypotheticals like this aren't useful for discussion because implicit in the hypothetical is a partisan agenda.
They didn't "win the House", they lost 11 seats in a highly polarized political environment in which red states outnumber blue. That's an utterly ridiculous claim.
In the first quote I am asking for instances where Republicans asked for something (Rocky Road ice cream) and they actually got it. Whether Democrats got what they wanted (fudge ripple) is irrelevant. If no one got what they wanted or if both sides ended up with what they didn't want (praileys and cream) then It was a thwart not a compromise.
Republicans getting vanilla and a box of chocolate chips while Democrats get vanilla and a container of fudge would also constitute compromise in that while neither party got exactly what they wanted they got something close enough and one side did not get exactly what they wanted while the other got crap.
The second quote was an attempt to clarify the first quote.
On subsequent readings my post does read much harsher than intended.
@Muppet - last time I checked all 435 house seats are up for election every two years. So yeah, they won the house in 2010 and they won it again in 2012. Doesn't matter if they have more or less seats than the previous house, they have a majority . Also they won 2010 on "stop Obama" not sure what they were running on this year.
Here is an idea that would probably receive more cries of "assrape" from Dems than Repubs...While Republicans have been very anal sensitive over the last two years they did win the house on a "stop Obama" platform.
Awesome. Another rape apologist on the FRCF. That's great.
Here is an idea that would probably receive more cries of "assrape" from Dems than Repubs...While Republicans have been very anal sensitive over the last two years they did win the house on a "stop Obama" platform.
Awesome. Another rape apologist on the FRCF. That's great.
I actually have to give credit to that Unskewed Polls guy Dean Chambers. He freely admits that he was wrong. He also says that he probably won't be going back to the polling business.
In the first quote I am asking for instances where Republicans asked for something (Rocky Road ice cream) and they actually got it. Whether Democrats got what they wanted (fudge ripple) is irrelevant. If no one got what they wanted or if both sides ended up with what they didn't want (praileys and cream) then It was a thwart not a compromise.
Republicans getting vanilla and a box of chocolate chips while Democrats get vanilla and a container of fudge would also constitute compromise in that while neither party got exactly what they wanted they got something close enough and one side did not get exactly what they wanted while the other got crap.
The second quote was an attempt to clarify the first quote.
On subsequent readings my post does read much harsher than intended.
@Muppet - last time I checked all 435 house seats are up for election every two years. So yeah, they won the house in 2010 and they won it again in 2012. Doesn't matter if they have more or less seats than the previous house, they have a majority . Also they won 2010 on "stop Obama" not sure what they were running on this year.
When over 50% of the country is ignorant and racist, it's a given that a campaign of "stop the black guy" will result in a majority in the House, where representatives are elected by state. Red states fail to keep up with blue on basically every economic metric, excluding in large cities, so let's not argue that it's because they're fiscally conservative geniuses that they don't like Obama.
So apparently their platform of "Stop Obama" kept them from losing out completely, but didn't win them any seats. I mean, even Bachmann only won by a couple of percentage points.
Realistically, I'm hoping that this is seen as a rejection of the Tea Party extremism and "block everything always" (a good example I remember recently was the Veterans' Jobs bill) in favor of actual compromise, and a stop to attacks on Obamacare.
I'm thinking there will be some cuts, but there will also be some tax increases. I think most of the revenue increase will come from allowing various tax cuts to expire and closing certain loopholes. Ideally, though, I'm hoping that we don't try to slash too much. I think people are starting to realize that you can't run government finances the same way as family finances. It's more akin to business finances, where you can cut your spending a bit but you still have to remain competitive and make wise investments.
The fact is that there are a block of red states out there that are just intractable. They believe they are doing what God tells them and short of a generational turnover, they will not change their views or cede any ground. Their vote should not be taken as indicative of the national political/social zeitgeist, because essentially, they have opted out by refusing to address any issues other than their staunch unwillingness to progress out of the fictional 1950s.
How many black Republican voters are there, Steve? Like 4% of blacks.
So a lack of support from an ethnic group equates to racism to you? It couldn't be anything else?
@ROE- Did they run on "stop Obama" again? I know it worked two years ago but I didn't follow the House races this year.
Yeah, they did. Most of them were running on the coattails of Romney's campaign, which was a lot of "Stop Obama". Honestly, it was a good idea. As a campaign strategy it had merit, they just didn't tailor their message enough to win over any new voters and we're seeing that there aren't enough angry white men to carry the Republican party forward.
See Lindsey Graham and other Republican commentator's notes on that one.
How many black Republican voters are there, Steve? Like 4% of blacks.
So a lack of support from an ethnic group equates to racism to you? It couldn't be anything else?
It's a bellwether for how inclusive Republican ideology is.
So is it racism or something else?
It's a mix of factors. You certainly can't credibly claim that racism is not disproportionately distributed between Republicans and Democrats.
I could make that claim but I am not. You are claiming racism as the main reason why Republicans are against Obama, I claim that the main reason is not one of race but of ideology. Obama could have been whiter than Romney and Republicans still would not have voted for him.
The race card is what you play after you lose the argument.
If you think that there is not a huge portion of the south and midwest that would vote against absolutely any black man, you are delusional, but no, I don't think that 100% of votes for Romney are votes against a black dude, and I didn't say that.
In order to get credible credit for voting on ideology, you have to demonstrate that you are educated in the issues and not voting based on propaganda and ignorance. I don't think that most red states can make that claim with a straight face. The Republican party is not interested in educating their voters, only influencing them.
The Democrats are also guilty of this, but to a much, much, much lesser degree. See PolitiFact, etc, for one, and compare Krugman to people like O'Reilly.
Using your logic CT is full of sexists because they chose a white guy over a white woman in the Senate race. Did she lose because of sexism or ideology?
Using your logic CT is full of sexists because they chose a white guy over a white woman in the Senate race. Did she lose because of sexism or ideology?
I'm not basing it on who won, I'm basing it on the campaigns, the rhetoric, the blogs, the pundits, the comments all over social media, etc. You keep trying to narrow this argument down to a single aspect and you just can't do that and be factual at the same time. This is a problem many Republicans have. They, as a group, are not big picture thinkers. They are very concrete, black and white thinkers who focus on a single aspect of a problem at a time. Like a laser.
In contrast, Democrats get so bogged down trying to consider everyone and everything (I'm talking voters, not the politicians who are corporate whores) that they end up paralyzing themselves and accomplishing very little even in the absence of an opposing party.
Frankly I'll take disorganized but earnest over angry and single minded, but neither is ideal.
If you think that there is not a huge portion of the south and midwest that would vote against absolutely any black man, you are delusional, but no, I don't think that 100% of votes for Romney are votes against a black dude, and I didn't say that.
No but you did claim that over half the country is racist and ignorant. You also characterize oposition to Obama as being based on race (stop the black guy.)
If you truly believe all of this then prove it. Dig up the voting data on these racist states and show where candidates lost based on their race in races that they should have won. Show races where race was the deciding factor. Where race was a real factor in the race.
I know far more racist Democrats than Republicans. People who did not want to vote for Obama because he was black but did because he is a Democrat.
I characterize SOME opposition to Obama as being based on race, and it is. Twitter, facebook, blogs, tell us this. It's not something you can measure directly, you can only infer it, but to say it's not there is crazy.
Again, you're laser focusing on one aspect of my argument and rebutting as if it's my entire argument.
Comments
If you asked me if it would be ok to stick your dick in my ass and I answered no asking me if it would be ok to only stick it in halfway would not be a valid attempt at compromise.
@Lou- no, I do not agree that what you quoted constitutes compromise.
@Muppet - I would also love to see the social-cons marginalized and removed from the Republican decision making groups.
Lets just say for arguments sake that after serious research and study we find that in order to fix the deficit we need 2/3 spending cuts and 1/3 tax increases. Let the Democrats choose where the tax increases go and Republicans choose the spending cuts. Include some basic protections so that neither side can impact any one thing/group by X% (no cutting an agency into non existance or taxing one group into the poorer house) and then vote it up or down.
While Republicans have been very anal sensitive over the last two years they did win the house on a "stop Obama" platform.
They didn't "win the House", they lost 11 seats in a highly polarized political environment in which red states outnumber blue. That's an utterly ridiculous claim.
In the first quote I am asking for instances where Republicans asked for something (Rocky Road ice cream) and they actually got it. Whether Democrats got what they wanted (fudge ripple) is irrelevant. If no one got what they wanted or if both sides ended up with what they didn't want (praileys and cream) then It was a thwart not a compromise.
Republicans getting vanilla and a box of chocolate chips while Democrats get vanilla and a container of fudge would also constitute compromise in that while neither party got exactly what they wanted they got something close enough and one side did not get exactly what they wanted while the other got crap.
The second quote was an attempt to clarify the first quote.
On subsequent readings my post does read much harsher than intended.
@Muppet - last time I checked all 435 house seats are up for election every two years. So yeah, they won the house in 2010 and they won it again in 2012. Doesn't matter if they have more or less seats than the previous house, they have a majority . Also they won 2010 on "stop Obama" not sure what they were running on this year.
In the 90's they ran on "stop Clinton" too.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/house
So apparently their platform of "Stop Obama" kept them from losing out completely, but didn't win them any seats. I mean, even Bachmann only won by a couple of percentage points.
I'm thinking there will be some cuts, but there will also be some tax increases. I think most of the revenue increase will come from allowing various tax cuts to expire and closing certain loopholes. Ideally, though, I'm hoping that we don't try to slash too much. I think people are starting to realize that you can't run government finances the same way as family finances. It's more akin to business finances, where you can cut your spending a bit but you still have to remain competitive and make wise investments.
@ROE- Did they run on "stop Obama" again? I know it worked two years ago but I didn't follow the House races this year.
That they still control the House is a fact. It is a win. It's not a win in the 'got more seats' category but it is a win.
See Lindsey Graham and other Republican commentator's notes on that one.
The race card is what you play after you lose the argument.
In order to get credible credit for voting on ideology, you have to demonstrate that you are educated in the issues and not voting based on propaganda and ignorance. I don't think that most red states can make that claim with a straight face. The Republican party is not interested in educating their voters, only influencing them.
The Democrats are also guilty of this, but to a much, much, much lesser degree. See PolitiFact, etc, for one, and compare Krugman to people like O'Reilly.
In contrast, Democrats get so bogged down trying to consider everyone and everything (I'm talking voters, not the politicians who are corporate whores) that they end up paralyzing themselves and accomplishing very little even in the absence of an opposing party.
Frankly I'll take disorganized but earnest over angry and single minded, but neither is ideal.
If you truly believe all of this then prove it. Dig up the voting data on these racist states and show where candidates lost based on their race in races that they should have won. Show races where race was the deciding factor. Where race was a real factor in the race.
I know far more racist Democrats than Republicans. People who did not want to vote for Obama because he was black but did because he is a Democrat.
Again, you're laser focusing on one aspect of my argument and rebutting as if it's my entire argument.