(October 28, 2016 at 10:19 am)Cato Wrote: The obstructionist charge is bullshit. There is zero compromise and both parties are to blame. Not finding a workable solution to then cry that the other side didn't give you everything you wanted is just as bad. They're all a bunch of self serving cunts.

How's about refusal to even hold hearings for SCOTUS nominees, and threats to continue that through Clinton's term(s), if elected?

That's definitely obstructionism, and AFAIK, it's unprecedented.

Because apparently Obama and Hillary are supposed to compromise and nominate an extremely conservative justice to the Supreme Court. You know, like Roy Moore. He's not doing much these days.

What I want to know is how do you impeach a congressman?

(October 28, 2016 at 5:38 pm)Whateverist Wrote: What I want to know is how do you impeach a congressman?

You'd probably have to impreach a couple dozen simultaneously, which has to be damn complicated. Honestly, if I had my way, everyone who decided it would be a good idea to shut down the government, not raise the debt ceiling, and block any and all discussion of appointing a new Supreme Court justice would be charged with treason.

Also, I did a thread on this two days ago: http://atheistforums.org/post-1426851.html#pid1426851

The suspension of the Garland nomination process is an example of obstructionism and complete bullshit in my opinion. I am mixed on my view of the government shutdown threats. The first was a temper tantrum regarding ACA. Despite my distaste for ACA, the move was petty. Although I disagree with the tactic, I agreed with the premise of the second instance in response to Obama's immigration executive orders. Seriously, if all it takes are executive orders to relieve oneself of the responsibility of upholding the law then let's not fuck around and simply declare a dictatorship and be done with the charade.

My point that we are underserved by Congress because of the partisan uncompromising bickering on both sides stands, specific examples to the contrary notwithstanding. Just go tally the use of 'poison pill' amendments used by both sides to intentionally stop debate on legislation. They vastly outweigh the above examples by volume and have a far greater impact on actual legislative work.

If the Democrats aren't running attack ads against Republican senators using the "They refuse to do their jobs and confirm a justice to the Supreme Court" angle, then they're idiots. Yes, I know many voters won't give a damn, but tell them that their current senators aren't doing their jobs and it might have an effect.

Americans intentionally vote in a divided government (between 30 and 40% of voters do this on purpose in recent elections! Vote downballot for the opposite of whoever they think will win the white house), and then they bitch and moan about how ineffective and bloated government is.

(October 29, 2016 at 7:55 am)Cato Wrote: The suspension of the Garland nomination process is an example of obstructionism and complete bullshit in my opinion. I am mixed on my view of the government shutdown threats. The first was a temper tantrum regarding ACA. Despite my distaste for ACA, the move was petty. Although I disagree with the tactic, I agreed with the premise of the second instance in response to Obama's immigration executive orders. Seriously, if all it takes are executive orders to relieve oneself of the responsibility of upholding the law then let's not fuck around and simply declare a dictatorship and be done with the charade.

My point that we are underserved by Congress because of the partisan uncompromising bickering on both sides stands, specific examples to the contrary notwithstanding. Just go tally the use of 'poison pill' amendments used by both sides to intentionally stop debate on legislation. They vastly outweigh the above examples by volume and have a far greater impact on actual legislative work.

Although there is some on both sides, it really IS lopsided by the Republicans. 

Look, the 112th Congress passed fewer laws than any previous congress in history. Our current congress is not doing better, sadly. It started with the Tea Party, but they really put their feet down because of Obama. They even admit that is why.  The republicans in congress hold an extremely unfavorable view of him (and incidentally, of Michelle), and after he was elected a second time, they have basically refused to function.

Don't tell us it isn't the Republicans. Yes, the Democrats are part of the problem, but they are not the larger part.
Republican way of life is dying out (quite literally with old, white and deeply religious folks being the majority slowly but surely goes the way of the dodo), and they dig their heels in to slow it down as much as they can, at great cost to our country.

The most divided congress ever

(October 29, 2016 at 12:23 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(October 29, 2016 at 7:55 am)Cato Wrote: The suspension of the Garland nomination process is an example of obstructionism and complete bullshit in my opinion. I am mixed on my view of the government shutdown threats. The first was a temper tantrum regarding ACA. Despite my distaste for ACA, the move was petty. Although I disagree with the tactic, I agreed with the premise of the second instance in response to Obama's immigration executive orders. Seriously, if all it takes are executive orders to relieve oneself of the responsibility of upholding the law then let's not fuck around and simply declare a dictatorship and be done with the charade.

My point that we are underserved by Congress because of the partisan uncompromising bickering on both sides stands, specific examples to the contrary notwithstanding. Just go tally the use of 'poison pill' amendments used by both sides to intentionally stop debate on legislation. They vastly outweigh the above examples by volume and have a far greater impact on actual legislative work.

Although there is some on both sides, it really IS lopsided by the Republicans. 

Look, the 112th Congress passed fewer laws than any previous congress in history. Our current congress is not doing better, sadly. It started with the Tea Party, but they really put their feet down because of Obama. They even admit that is why.  The republicans in congress hold an extremely unfavorable view of him (and incidentally, of Michelle), and after he was elected a second time, they have basically refused to function.

Don't tell us it isn't the Republicans. Yes, the Democrats are part of the problem, but they are not the larger part.
Republican way of life is dying out (quite literally with old, white and deeply religious folks being the majority slowly but surely goes the way of the dodo), and they dig their heels in to slow it down as much as they can, at great cost to our country.

The most divided congress ever

And, of course, when's the last time a Democratically-controlled Congress obstructed something so badly as this, like shutting down the government because of a policy they didn't like, or trying to vote against raising the debt ceiling, an act which, if they didn't cave in, would have ended, by definition, in America going bankrupt?

And, as contentious as Robert Bork's 1987 nomination for the Supreme Court wound up being, at least the Democrats gave him a hearing and a vote before the Senate finally rejected his bid. And that whole clusterfuck took only 114 days from start to finish, which is almost exactly half the time it's taking them so far to allow a vote on Merrick Garland.

(October 28, 2016 at 10:05 am)Chad32 Wrote: I think if the republicans keep acting like this, they'll be forced to give up power. You can't run a government like this. It's a million wonders why the democrats aren't pounding on this. Then again, establishment dems don't actually want to win. Even when their opponents are hoisting themselves by their own petards, democrats won't do anything.

It's the same reason why the Bliarites engaged in suicidal attempts to backstab Corbyn recently rather than working with him to hammer the Torykippers while they are at their historical weakest.