This requires some substantiation. A cite for sore eyes, if you will. Or not.
If anyone else asked, I’d give it. Since your raison d’etre is snark, no.
Well, you wouldn’t have to actively participate. A simple link to a reputable source will suffice. Which you have at your very fingertips, I am sure.
Have you a list of acceptable petitioners, or is it just anybody who isn’t me?
Well, OK, anybody out there who isn’t me? That wants to have some flesh put on those rhetorical bones? Anyone?
Upon reading this I got a violent headache. Now my nose is bleeding a little. Is that normal ?
Congressional Research Service report summarizing 53 debt ceiling votes since 1978.
Are you suggesting the Republicans don’t want the CR?
I googled for the text of a bill just like you describe and did not find it. Do you have a link to the actual bill you are talking about? A link to an article saying that a source in the Speaker’s office says there is going to be a bill will of course not count.
I’m not the king of googling, so you may well find that such a radically anti-insurance company bill (delay of mandate without delaying the beginning of coverage) has been introduced. I know it hasn’t passed, because I read through the list of bills that passed the House lately.
I’d be interested just to see what kind of congresscritters would actually dare sponsor such a populist monstrosity.
It will delay it by a year, this year. And by a year, next year. And by a year, year after that, if the Republican blackmail works. Count on it.
Of course they do. But if they just back down from their extravagant demands to something they both want and can live with without the Democrats giving something away, they look like chumps. And avoiding that’s what’s really important. Well, according to Terr, anyway.
So here’s an idea : have the Dems put forward a CR that proposes to fund all of government (ACA included), except for military appropriations. Then when the screaming has receded a bit, offer to amend it to “except for military appropriations benefitting Red strongholds”. Complain that the Republicans not willing to negociate with them. Then, finally, offer the clean CR yet again, and concede that were it not for the dogged stance of the Republican hard liners, they wouldn’t have bargained down to their preferred position.
This shit ain’t checkers, it’s judo.
So you’re saying that if the ACA is successful, that would make it impossible/prohibitively hard for Republicans to get elected?
I wish!
As long as the law permits the strike, of course a striking union is a proper entity to negotiate with. And it is not a tu quoque fallacy: either you adopt the definition or you don’t.
Perhaps the worst single debating sin in the SDMB environment is the reflexive invocation of tu quoque in circumstances that don’t fit the actual fallacy. When someone points out an inconsistency in your proposed definitions, it is not sufficient to trigger tu quoque.
I see your veneration of the legal process stops at the point where the process has reached an outcome you desire. Persons acting legally but contrary to your wishes are holding hostages; the legal processes that produced the stuff you want are lovingly detailed as legal.
Why is that?
Which way would you bet? So you know, the Republicans have the lowest approval rating of any party since Gallup started polling.
I wish I could say you know better than to offer that as a good-faith claim. You do know the facts, however, and you know as well as the rest of us what you’re leaving out.
When you’re ready to be responsible, do let us know, will you?
You shouldn’t be too hopeful yourself, though - seems the last time they suffered such a precipitous dip, they bounced right back.
What’s with the 99 monster dip, anyway ? Clinton impeachment ?
True, we desperately need a better, more responsible electorate, with non-ADD-level memories. No idea how to fix that, though.
About 1999, the answer is Yes.
Gee Bricker, I admitted definativly (as you pointed out) in post 68 that what they are doing is perfectly legal and valid, if distastful. The main thing I was trying to determine in this thread is what the Republicans have brought to the table that will incent the Democrats to negotiate. Since no one can answer that, it is pretty clear that they have nothing except the continued shutdown which is hurting them worse than the Democrats and hurting the nation as collateral damage. Got it.
It is also pretty clear that you are really not all that interested in discussing this topic, and would rather scold me for improper use of logical fallacies and nitpicking little parts of what I write while ignoring the larger points. Whatever. A little unsatisfying maybe, but OK.
I think obfuscation is all the shutdown defenders have at this point. They can’t actually defend the preposterous position that the Republicans have taken in this situation. I mean the Republicans themselves can’t even decide what they want other than that its something. So all they can do is try to distract with semantics, distractions, and I’m rubber you’re glue kind of stuff. The fact is the Republicans have nothing at all positive to bring to the negotiating table. All they have is threats, and crossing their hearts that they won’t follow through with the threats (at least until next week or whenever the next manufactured crisis is anyway). That’s mafia style negotiation right there. So the answer to the OP is now, and has been for the entire thread - nothing. They have nothing to offer. I mean how many of those defending the GOP position in this thread have also said that they did not agree with going down this path, and that they thought it was a bad idea from the start, and yet they are still defending this ridiculous blunder and are now doubling down on it? Even in the face of the republicans now having their worst Gallup favorable rating in the history of that poll?
I’m on the same page as you ideologically here, but isn’t the shutdown precisely what they bring to the negotiating table? Why should that item be excluded from “[that which] the Republicans have to negotiate with” as referenced in the title of this thread? Maybe I’m missing something here. As distasteful as it is to me that they’re using this as a bargaining chip to achieve ends that I find equally distasteful, how does this not qualify as negotiation (or hard bargaining) in the ordinary sense of the word?
Because it isn’t only a behind-closed-doors talking/handshaking session, like a simple negotiation. This way, they’re causing real damage to real people who aren’t even part of the discussion for them. That isn’t negotiation, that’s hostage-taking.
The larger point is, in my opinion, pretty well settled. The only real weapon in the GOP’s arsenal is the budget and the related issue of the debt ceiling, and they appear to be willing to destroy the village in order to “save” it.
But that’s fairly described as “negotiation,” albeit with high stakes and misguided aims.