Originally posted by mstanford2912Isn't... isn't yours emotion based as well? You come off as pretty emotional toward all this.
Not repealing Obamacare, pushing off ONE aspect of it by ONE year. Your examples are pretty inaccurate as well, all of them. They're clearly emotion based rather than any semblance of logic.
True. Logically speaking it makes no sense for the Dems to cave in and negotiate with them over this when they've won already.
Originally posted by Petrus
A question... Is it ever stated what Tulak Hord is? Human? Hybrid?Because as I see it, most ancient Sith Lords [Ragnos, Sadow, for example] were hybrids. So, logically, the other Lords would most probably be hybrids, too. Correct?
He's half human, half saiyan.
True. Logically speaking it makes no sense for the Dems to cave in and negotiate with them over this when they've won already
No, its never stated.
Originally posted by mstanford2912
So sitting at the table for any sort of negotiations is caving in? And you're blaming the Republican party? Lol.
Agreeing to negotiate would simply encourage them by implying that they might compromise on the issue through discussion. In this matter the Dems are in a position of strength and have no reason to do that. Any negotiation would be pointless as no compromise is an option. The Dems have no reason to compromise. The only thing gained by discussion would be not hurting the Republicans feelings.
Agreeing to negotiate would simply encourage them by implying that they might compromise on the issue through discussion. In this matter the Dems are in a position of strength and have no reason to do that. Any negotiation would be pointless as no compromise is an option. The only thing gained by discussion would be not hurting their feelings.
Saying "there will be no compromise" makes the democrats look childish and weak, no better than the republicans. Sitting at the table and talking about several aspects of Obamacare(rather than repealing Obamacare) would have been a step in the right directions. That is ALL they had to do to make the republicans look bad and they couldn't even handle that.
Sitting down for negotiations assumes that you have something you're willing to give up in exchange for something else. If the issue is Obamacare then the Dems shouldn't be chastised for being unwilling to "negotiate" when their bill has already been legally passed in to law. Why should they feel obliged to change it? If they did then the only thing they'd get in return is an end to government shutdown, something the GOP caused in the first place. The Reps. would be rewarded for doing nothing other than shutting down government. A perfect analogy is the oft used, "child being rewarded because he throws a tantrum". He doesn't deserve it, but if he's not given what he doesn't deserve, he'll literally shut down government.
Yeah... the Democrats are the ones looking childish and weak. 😬
Again, you're coming at this from an emotional basis. "A step in the right direction?" That has no value in a logical analysis. In terms of their options:
Option 1: Talk to them - Wasted effort. The Republicans will be pissed off anyway since obviously the Dems aren't going to back down without a reason to. A pointless discussion which will embolden the Reps unnecessarily.
Option 2: Ignore them - No effort wasted. Pisses off the Reps. Shows that they will not compromise.
I've always been upfront about my level of skill with metaphors. But typing from my own iPhone, I think that it is possible to do an analysis of the situation without resorting to such comparisons:
The two parties disagree on the correct policy for many situations.
Our political system is designed to resolve such conflicts, in part, through reference to (a reasonably accurate proxy of) public opinion.
Public opinion aligned such that the democratic policy for healthcare was the one enacted.
Republicans used nearly every trick in the rule book to try to prevent this. They lobbied and campaigned and even took the issue to the Supreme Court.
Now that their objections and options within the system have run out, they are trying a new tactic: refusing to continue governance until this one issue is resolved in their favor.
Moreover, they have arranged matters such that the longer they are denied, the more pain the country is in.
The reason that Republicans are to blame is that they are not negotiating in good faith.
The intent of my Arson and Wife analogies is to illustrate that the Democrats are not obligated to negotiate on every possible proposal. Personally, I think that the importance of Obamacare on both policy and political levels is great enough that a suggestion to repeal or delay it is tantamount to inquiring about DS's wife. No such proposal is reasonable.
Finally, the first two comparisons made, about terrorists and tantrums, was a proposal for how to strategically frame the discourse. Democrats often let their opponents frame the debate and those were rhetorical ideas about how to better deal with the media.
Sitting down for negotiations assumes that you have something you're willing to give up in exchange for something else. If the issue is Obamacare then the Dems shouldn't be chastised for being unwilling to "negotiate" when their bill has already been legally passed in to law. Why should they feel obliged to change it? If they did then the only thing they'd get in return is an end to government shutdown, something the GOP caused in the first place. The Reps. would be rewarded for doing nothing other than shutting down government. A perfect analogy is the oft used, "child being rewarded because he throws a tantrum". He doesn't deserve it, but if he's not given what he doesn't deserve, he'll literally shut down government.
The issue isn't repealing Obamacare, it's delaying certain provisions within Obamacare by 1 year. Furthermore, your logic is flawed. The Republicans didn't cause the shut down, the Republicans' demands combined the the Democrats' unwillingness to sit down (not even giving anything up) caused the shutdown. And if the Republicans are the "child throwing the tantrum", what are the democrats? The child screaming "no, I can't hear you"?
Yeah... the Democrats are the ones looking childish and weak. erm
Again, you're coming at this from an emotional basis. "A step in the right direction?" That has no value in a logical analysis. In terms of their options:
Option 1: Talk to them - Wasted effort. The Republicans will be pissed off anyway since obviously the Dems aren't going to back down without a reason to. A pointless discussion which will embolden the Reps unnecessarily.
Option 2: Ignore them - No effort wasted. Pisses off the Reps. Shows that they will not compromise.
Public opinion aligned such that the democratic policy for healthcare was the one enacted.Republicans used nearly every trick in the rule book to try to prevent this. They lobbied and campaigned and even took the issue to the Supreme Court.
2. By "every trick in the book", you of course mean through legally constitutional channels, correct?
Now that their objections and options within the system have run out, they are trying a new tactic: refusing to continue governance until this one issue is resolved in their favor.
The intent of my Arson and Wife analogies is to illustrate that the Democrats are not obligated to negotiate on every possible proposal.
1. The generic defense of representative democracy applies here. A majority f democrats were elected, this liberal policy is likely to be enacted.
2. Yes. From filibustering to bipartisan smear campaigns, there are many legitimate political maneuvers. For this bill, the ultimate recourse was the Supreme Court. All such avenues resulted in the liberal policy being enacted. Policy disagreements cannot, however, degenerate into government shut downs. The Republican escalation of the debate crossed a line.
3. This is, I think, where your own emotional response is coming in. Because, like, you recognize that the Democratic response affects the tone of the discourse, but not the ultimate result. Without escalating to socially reckless stakes, the Republicans do not actually have any leverage for such talks. The ONLY difference in outcome is that the republicans' feelings would be soothed.
This is worth stressing: Democrats negotiation objective would be to placate and/or patronize Republicans.
Politically, this is itself dangerous for the Democrats; they risk being labeled as obstructionist, when the issue is only being dredged up again because of the right wing.
3. This is, I think, where your own emotional response is coming in. Because, like, you recognize that the Democratic response affects the tone of the discourse, but not the ultimate result. Without escalating to socially reckless stakes, the Republicans do not actually have any leverage for such talks. The ONLY difference in outcome is that the republicans' feelings would be soothed.
This is worth stressing: Democrats negotiation objective would be to placate and/or patronize Republicans.
when the issue is only being dredged up again because of the right wing.
"What I find mildly amusing is biased individuals throwing the blame on one party, completely ignoring the incompetence of the other."
(Still on phone so this will be short)
I think this is the disagreement in a nutshell. While democrats and Republicans may be similarly culpable for the institutional logjam vis a vis negotiation and procedure, only Republicans are responsible for inflicting that dysfunction on the rest of the country in the form of an actual honest to god government shutdown.
only Republicans are responsible for inflicting that dysfunction on the rest of the country in the form of an actual honest to god government shutdown.
“So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine. Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.” Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine. What should we do???
Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the ****ing job.Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.
Bill is a fucking jackass.”