House Preparing to Toss Boehner

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He was weak and a shill and a drunk and bent over on everything he said he was going to do.

It's impressive how I showed you the numbers on how he's the least-permissive speakers on record, but because he has any line where he's willing to stop, you say he lets Obama get away with everything.

We are agreed that Boehner's a fool, but the foolishness was thinking the Republican party would be happy with him for doing 90% of their desires, even ones beyond what anyone in his position had done before, but stopping where he thought going further would hurt the party.

Boehner's a fool for listening to what you wanted, but having limits where he thought it'd be self-destructive to go.

Did you even do that Obama care calculator and see what your premiums and deductibles are going to be?

Mine's just fine. And there's the matter that tens of millions more Americans are getting insurance as a result, and it's coming in under budget, and one of the big things it does is slow the rate of rising costs (not lowering costs, but slowing the already-rising costs), and oh yes, once it was passed the Republican party never had the votes to repeal it nor even tried to make deals promising other stuff in exchange for a repeal, and thus whether or not it was repealed was way outside Boehner's control.

Boner was a shill, and a played bend over for Obama to many times. He ran on defunding Obama care, and he ended up funding it.

Because he had no actual opportunities to defund it, because he doesn't have the power to, because that's not the way congress works.

That's another part of foolishness of Boehner and others like him, and one I've mentioned in other threads- the overpromising.

If you promise stuff that requires a 2/3rd majority, and you don't have a 2/3rds majority with your people, and you aren't willing to do trades to let the other side get some stuff done in exchange for a 2/3rds majority on just-the-one thing, and are in fact deeply opposed to doing that, you are not going to get your 2/3rds majority, and a simple napkin math calculation once the seat counting is done should tell you.

It's not a matter of letting Obama, it's that Boehner never had the power to stop it, and throwing a fit and trying to hold the government's functioning hostage with a shutdown doesn't work because it makes you look bad more than the other side, and trying to threaten with the debt ceiling even less-so be that one is just suicidal, it's a threat that can't actually be carried out without being willing to destroy the country's economy and make one's parties pariahs for the next three generations.

Stopping the ACA was a pipedream. It passed with a supermajority in both houses, got signed by the president, and cleared by the supreme court. Meaning, it has passed every government test and gotten an OK already. In order to stop it, you need to gather more public support and the Republican party isn't willing to do that, or wait for it to happen.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

Obama spent $500,000,000 on a failed Syrian strategy and going to spend another $600 million yet you remain silent on that.

Correction, Time: I'm pretty sure everyone here who posted in that thread, mentioned that we thought that was a failure and a waste. I know I did, and I know you responded to me doing so.

So you're trying to re-write what other people say again.

(And while that is a *definite* mistake and bad move, Republicans have wasted more on similar things, so it's more an argument for another, completely third choice who's not doing Obama's way or the Republican way)

Originally posted by Q99
It's impressive how I showed you the numbers on how he's the least-permissive speakers on record, but because he has any line where he's willing to stop, you say he lets Obama get away with everything.

We are agreed that Boehner's a fool, but the foolishness was thinking the Republican party would be happy with him for doing 90% of their desires, even ones beyond what anyone in his position had done before, but stopping where he thought going further would hurt the party.

Boehner's a fool for listening to what you wanted, but having limits where he thought it'd be self-destructive to go.

Mine's just fine. And there's the matter that tens of millions more Americans are getting insurance as a result, and it's coming in under budget, and one of the big things it does is slow the rate of rising costs (not lowering costs, but slowing the already-rising costs), and oh yes, once it was passed the Republican party never had the votes to repeal it nor even tried to make deals promising other stuff in exchange for a repeal, and thus whether or not it was repealed was way outside Boehner's control.

Because he had no actual opportunities to defund it, because he doesn't have the power to, because that's not the way congress works.

That's another part of foolishness of Boehner and others like him, and one I've mentioned in other threads- the overpromising.

If you promise stuff that requires a 2/3rd majority, and you don't have a 2/3rds majority with your people, and you aren't willing to do trades to let the other side get some stuff done in exchange for a 2/3rds majority on just-the-one thing, and are in fact deeply opposed to doing that, you are not going to get your 2/3rds majority, and a simple napkin math calculation once the seat counting is done should tell you.

It's not a matter of letting Obama, it's that Boehner never had the power to stop it, and throwing a fit and trying to hold the government's functioning hostage with a shutdown doesn't work because it makes you look bad more than the other side, and trying to threaten with the debt ceiling even less-so be that one is just suicidal, it's a threat that can't actually be carried out without being willing to destroy the country's economy and make one's parties pariahs for the next three generations.

Stopping the ACA was a pipedream. It passed with a supermajority in both houses, got signed by the president, and cleared by the supreme court. Meaning, it has passed every government test and gotten an OK already. In order to stop it, you need to gather more public support and the Republican party isn't willing to do that, or wait for it to happen.

Its like you have no clue how the speakership works, you know he is the most powerful man in government besides the president and third in line of the office of the president only because their is a VP.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I think it's the former because Boehner is dicking up the image of conservatives in this country. He's making conservatives seem like the "party of no", when its' really him.

Just take a look at Time and Fly- They are literally getting on his case for not being party-of-no enough. For him not being able to say 'no' on stuff that happened before he became Speaker, actually (Obamacare).

And they aren't the only ones- Ted Cruz is the same, so are the major Tea Partiers in the House.

I think if they did get a figure more willing to do deals that'd let them get what they want some of the time, it'd be good long-term for them, but I don't see that happening.

I don't think you line up with your party here. I wish you were right, the country just works plum better when there's communication, I just don't think it's likely.

Wait, isn't Obama the party of NO with all his executive orders and vetos?

Ted Cruz isn't even in the house.. Get a grip. He's a senator..what does this have to do with him?

Originally posted by Q99
Just take a look at Time and Fly- They are literally getting on his case for not being party-of-no enough. For him not being able to say 'no' on stuff that happened before he became Speaker, actually (Obamacare).

And they aren't the only ones- Ted Cruz is the same, so are the major Tea Partiers in the House.

I think if they did get a figure more willing to do deals that'd let them get what they want some of the time, it'd be good long-term for them, but I don't see that happening.

I don't think you line up with your party here. I wish you were right, the country just works plum better when there's communication, I just don't think it's likely.

I'm pretty confident I represent the majority of conservatives, whereas the conservative leaders do not.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Wait, isn't Obama the party of NO with all his executive orders and vetos?

Nope. Executive orders aren't 'nos' to begin with, they're doing stuff (also, he's used less than, but in the same ballpark, as George W. Bush, 216 vs 291. Nothing unusual about number of executive orders one way or another), and Obama hasn't used many vetoes at all- due to the no-compromise, almost nothing reaches his desk. Stuff tends to be either unanimous or fail to get to him.

Barack Obama has used 4. Four vetoes.

Double-digits are normal (Both Bushes, Clinton, and Reagan all had double digit). Triple digits aren't unheard of. The record is over 600.

If the Republicans got their act together and made deals, he'd probably have to have used his veto stamp a lot more, but your champ Boehner has done such a good job at shutting stuff down and avoiding the normal get-stuff-done deals that almost nothing has reached Obama's desk, and he signs almost everything that does.

Ted Cruz isn't even in the house.. Get a grip. He's a senator..what does this have to do with him?

One, he's someone calling for the exact thing you are, no compromise.

Two, he's reached over to the house and was active in talking to house members during the shutdown.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm pretty confident I represent the majority of conservatives, whereas the conservative leaders do not.

I'm pretty confident that a decade or so ago, you would've been right.

Now, with the tea party, anti-Obama mania, losing moderates due to the party shifting right, and so on? Not so sure.

Hah, good one 🙂

Info on the faction that pushed Boehner out, the 'freedom caucus'.

Also a simple info chart on length-of-speakerhood, Boehner's one of the longer lasting, surprisingly.