They did not use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip.
His integrity is a separate issue.
If they put us at risk of default, then absolutely it was the political equivalent of terrorism. Did they?
They defeated the debt ceiling increase, so yes, if no debt ceiling increase puts us at risk of default, then they put us at risk of default. Of course, they relented later - kinda like Republicans. Democrat terrorists?
Absolutely, if what you describe is true (I’m not familiar with those events). Political terrorism, and it should be unacceptable.
It is indicative of the importance of such an event that you’re not familiar with them. And I posted a link to those events upthread. You’re welcome.
I love that this is the new GOP talking point: threatening default is OK because we’re never really going to do it.
That is, after all, the only way to defend the action to the public, since only a select few Tea Party idiots actually think default is a good idea.
The only problem is that the threat itself is also damaging, as we learned last time they did this.
I’m glad we’re agreed that threatening debt default is the equivalent of political terrorism. Good for you for coming to the conclusion that the Republicans should never engage in this tactic because it hurts the country.
No, that’s a Democrat talking point about the so-called “political terrorism” that they used to indulge in.
I don’t agree, for the simple reason that the debt ceiling is set up to be approved or NOT approved. If it must only be approved, why is there a vote?
But if you do think that it’s “political terrorism”, then there’s the evidence for you that both sides engage in it.
Because of stupid political calculations. Whether to pay government bills that have already been spent should not be up for debate. The debt ceiling is a useless and counter-productive relic of idiot politics. If you want to cut spending and cut the debt, than actually cut spending and pay off the debt. The debt ceiling does nothing but risk the full faith and credit of our country.
So what?
I will answer you the way Obamabots do about ACA: “It’s the law. Live with it.”
Why can’t your side try changing a law the old-fashioned way: by winning an election?
If they can be called “my side” - they did. They hold a decisive majority in the House. So you (Democrats) don’t get to do whatever you want.
You know, things you want, like not having the country’s economy collapse and other liberal bullshit like that.
Neither does the other side. But the Democrats can’t give in here, no matter what the demands are. Even if the “demands” were tiny, and something they supported. The tactic is illegitimate, and it must not be allowed to be used again.
Again, the “principled” stand is a lie considering that Democrats considered the tactic legitimate when they used it when they voted down the debt ceiling. Or when Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling.
The worst thing you can do to is back the man you’re fighting into a corner. Then it’s fight to the death.
It doesn’t matter what the “principled” stand, the Democrats have no choice here. If they give in, they lose FOREVER, on every issue, unless they control both houses and the Presidency.
Let me answer your hyperbole with another:
… and if Republicans give in right now, they will be utterly humiliated and irrelevant FOREVER.
Personally, I would be embarrassed that Republicans failed to take the White House with an unemployment rate as high as it was; and how Republicans not only blew their opportunity to take the Senate by running terrible candidates is several states, not to mention that they actually lost seats in the Senate; and how Democratic candidates for the House actually got a million more votes than Republican candidates (guess you like that gerrymandering!)…
But I see you’re just an optimistic guy who sees a silver lining in every cloud. Chalk November 2012 up as a win for Republicans! That’s the spirit! You can’t take many more victories like that, though!
This is the present reality.