American Politics: Fiscal Cliffhanger

[Incelastan]

Why didn't they do a better job of stopping the Iraq War? There are a number of such questions. But that's about political incompetence, not about what the minority has the right to do.

Showing up for the job you were elected to do is incompetence?

No, failing to stop bills or appointees because you lack the will to fight them, failing even to try to stop them.

[Neutraligon]

No idea, maybe they did not have enough dems willing to do so, since the dems may be in districts that are tossup. Which states do you think they might have enough?

New Hampshire, Arizona, Georgia. Maybe Kansas and Iowa along with North Carolina.

New Hampshire requires at least 10, so they just barely have enough if everyone walks, will everyone walk?

[San Lumen]

New Hampshire, Arizona, Georgia. Maybe Kansas and Iowa along with North Carolina.

New Hampshire requires at least 10, so they just barely have enough if everyone walks, will everyone walk?

What about the others I mentioned?

[Neutraligon]

New Hampshire requires at least 10, so they just barely have enough if everyone walks, will everyone walk?

What about the others I mentioned?

Working on it, this takes time
Georgia also needs every single dem to walk out.
Kansas needs majority present, they do not have enough
Iowa needs majority present, they do not have enough
NOrth Carolina I think only needs 8 people present, so they do not have enough.
Arizona needs a majority present, they do not have enough.

Done, Except New Hampshire, Florida and Georgia they do not have enough. New Hampshire, Georgia and Florida all need every member of the dems to walk out.

[Tarsonis]

Are you utterly incapable of making your argument without attacking other players?

Thats not an attack. AL has repeatedly stated they don't believe in free and fair elections or democracy.

Irrelevant. It was a completely unnecessary point to make, you only did it to be katty

[Alcala-Cordel]

But they are, at least in theory, expected to vote as their own constituents wish. You can vote as the overall majority wishes, but the consequence is that your own voters in your own district could fire you for defying them in favor of the overall public.

as I said some of these districts would elect one of my dogs if nominated if nominated as a Republican.

I'd vote for your dog. I'm sure they'd be much better than almost any politician out there.

[Bombadil]

Beyond the distorting effect of money on agendas, it's also a massive suck on time - 10 days out of a month is already spent not actually legislating but just ringing donors..

How much of members' actual time is devoted to "dialing for dollars"? They are generally hard-working, honest, type A personalities, so in a typical 10-hour day, they might dedicate three hours. In election cycles during the heat of battle, it might escalate to more than half of their time.

But it doesn't stop there. Members are now additionally "required" to raise money for "the party" and contribute to pools of funds at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC). As a member rises in seniority to committee chair or ranking member, their fundraising responsibilities multiply significantly. So just as they assume more jurisdiction, clout and a heavier legislative workload, they are simultaneously saddled with spending even more time raising even more money.

When our legislators spend so much time raising money, the result is dysfunctional government. This directly impacts the taxpayer and makes our government more expensive. Time spent courting major donors is time not spent developing bipartisan relationships with other members, or visiting the Pentagon to find out more about a new weapons system, or traveling to see small businesses in their home districts.

Link

[Elwher]

and do a a majority support these bills? if so they are defeating the very purpose of democracy and having elections. They are preventing the majority from enacting what they were elected to do.

I would assume yes, however the constituents of those who walked out do not support those bills, and so they are representing their constituents and preventing those bills from being passed. It is precisely the job of the opposition to try and prevent the majority from enacting those laws.

Have they polled their constituents and asked them if they want the representatives to walk out? Did they run on a campaign of "we'll leave if we don't like what the majority is doing"? Otherwise, how do they know the constituents want them to not represent them in the legislature?

[Spirit of Hope]

I would assume yes, however the constituents of those who walked out do not support those bills, and so they are representing their constituents and preventing those bills from being passed. It is precisely the job of the opposition to try and prevent the majority from enacting those laws.

Have they polled their constituents and asked them if they want the representatives to walk out? Did they run on a campaign of "we'll leave if we don't like what the majority is doing"? Otherwise, how do they know the constituents want them to not represent them in the legislature?

Does every politician poll on every issue? No. An elected politicians job isn't necessarily to follow the every whim of their constituents but instead to state their policy positions and credentials, get elected (or not), and then attempt to do what they think is best. Constituents vote for who they think will do the best job representing them, Constituents do not have the ability to be fully informed on any issue, let alone every issue. If they have particular feelings about a specific issue they can let their representative know, mail, phones, email, and offices exist after all. If the constituents really don't like how a representative is doing they can vote for someone else in the election or primary. If for some reason a representative is doing a particularly poor job then constituents can try to get their representative impeached/kicked out and vote someone else in.

[Ifreann]

Being an elected representative isn't the same as being an employee.

[Haganham]

Are you utterly incapable of making your argument without attacking other players?

Thats not an attack. AL has repeatedly stated they don't believe in free and fair elections or democracy.

you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't believe in free and fair elections or democracy.

[San Lumen]

Thats not an attack. AL has repeatedly stated they don't believe in free and fair elections or democracy.

you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't believe in free and fair elections or democracy.

How have I shown this?

[Ifreann]

you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't believe in free and fair elections or democracy.

How have I shown this?

You've just now been arguing that elected representatives should be removed from office without regard for the wishes of their constituents.

[Galloism]

because in a democracy you respect the outcome of elections. Strange how don't see Democrats doing this in red states to stop government from functioning. They likely have enough seats in many states with Republican controlled legislatures they could keep state government from functioning. Why don't they? Oh its because they respect the outcome of elections.

And they are respecting the outcome of elections. They have enough people elected that they can prevent the quorum, which is the result of an election. Since they have enough elected people them using the power they have as a result of the election is very much respecting the ourcome. YOu seem to have forgotten the Texas walkout by democrats, thus preventing a quorum. SO yes, dems are doing it.

...From what I recall you supported the dems doing so.

You recall correctly.

[Tarsonis]

you have repeatedly demonstrated that you don't believe in free and fair elections or democracy.

How have I shown this?

As others have shown, we have evidence of you supporting Democrats when they deny quorum, yet here you are whinging about Republicans do it.

what you've shown is you don't care about Democracy, you care about your team winning.

[Haganham]

How have I shown this?

As others have shown, we have evidence of you supporting Democrats when they deny quorum, yet here you are whinging about Republicans do it.

what you've shown is you don't care about Democracy, you care about your team winning.

Not to mention refusing to acknowledge any election rigging other then literal ballot stuffing.

[San Lumen]

How have I shown this?

As others have shown, we have evidence of you supporting Democrats when they deny quorum, yet here you are whinging about Republicans do it.

what you've shown is you don't care about Democracy, you care about your team winning.

I don't support it at anymore.

As others have shown, we have evidence of you supporting Democrats when they deny quorum, yet here you are whinging about Republicans do it.

what you've shown is you don't care about Democracy, you care about your team winning.

Not to mention refusing to acknowledge any election rigging other then literal ballot stuffing.

What do you consider vote rigging?

[Tarsonis]

As others have shown, we have evidence of you supporting Democrats when they deny quorum, yet here you are whinging about Republicans do it.

what you've shown is you don't care about Democracy, you care about your team winning.

I don't support it at anymore.

But of course, when the shoes on the other foot

Not to mention refusing to acknowledge any election rigging other then literal ballot stuffing.

What do you consider vote rigging?

Same as the rest of us, underhanded and illicit action meant to unduely influence the election. Like, for example, letting a campaign have complete control of the party's funding apparatus during the primary.

[San Lumen]

I don't support it at anymore.

But of course, when the shoes on the other foot

What do you consider vote rigging?

Same as the rest of us, underhanded and illicit action meant to unduely influence the election. Like, for example, letting a campaign have complete control of the party's funding apparatus during the primary.

When has this ever occurred? i like a source for this nonsense claim.

[Tarsonis]

But of course, when the shoes on the other foot



Same as the rest of us, underhanded and illicit action meant to unduely influence the election. Like, for example, letting a campaign have complete control of the party's funding apparatus during the primary.

When has this ever occurred? i like a source for this nonsense claim.

I've shown you evidence, the DNC literally admitted to doing it during the 2016 primary. you hopped up and down and screamed it wasn't election rigging.

don't huff and puff and demand evidence you've already been shown, you're just proving you refused to listen or even read it.

[San Lumen]

When has this ever occurred? i like a source for this nonsense claim.

I've shown you evidence, the DNC literally admitted to doing it during the 2016 primary. you hopped up and down and screamed it wasn't election rigging.

don't huff and puff and demand evidence you've already been shown, you're just proving you refused to listen or even read it.

Enough of this crap. Get some new material. You and others are simply unable to accept your candidate wasn't supported by a majority twice and need to invent a scandal or claim it was rigged to explain why you lost.

[Tarsonis]

I've shown you evidence, the DNC literally admitted to doing it during the 2016 primary. you hopped up and down and screamed it wasn't election rigging.

don't huff and puff and demand evidence you've already been shown, you're just proving you refused to listen or even read it.

Enough of this crap. Get some new material. You and others are simply unable to accept your candidate wasn't supported by a majority twice and need to invent a scandal or claim it was rigged to explain why you lost.

Classic San, having no leg to stand on, resorts to baseless attacks.

I'll give you a buffalo nickle San, if you can find anywhere in my post history that I've endorsed Bernie Sanders for president.

[El Lazaro]

I've shown you evidence, the DNC literally admitted to doing it during the 2016 primary. you hopped up and down and screamed it wasn't election rigging.

don't huff and puff and demand evidence you've already been shown, you're just proving you refused to listen or even read it.

Enough of this crap. Get some new material. You and others are simply unable to accept your candidate wasn't supported by a majority twice and need to invent a scandal or claim it was rigged to explain why you lost.

Admit it. Vermin Supreme was the main challenger to Obama and would have won 2016 and 2020 if the DNC establishment didn’t exile him from the party.

[Incelastan]

I've shown you evidence, the DNC literally admitted to doing it during the 2016 primary. you hopped up and down and screamed it wasn't election rigging.

don't huff and puff and demand evidence you've already been shown, you're just proving you refused to listen or even read it.

Enough of this crap. Get some new material. You and others are simply unable to accept your candidate wasn't supported by a majority twice and need to invent a scandal or claim it was rigged to explain why you lost.

Accusing a conservative NSer of supporting a social democrat, just because he doubts the fairness of the 2016 and 2020 Democratic primary processes, is a new low, even for you.

[Tarsonis]

Enough of this crap. Get some new material. You and others are simply unable to accept your candidate wasn't supported by a majority twice and need to invent a scandal or claim it was rigged to explain why you lost.

Accusing a conservative NSer of supporting a social democrat, just because he doubts the fairness of the 2016 and 2020 Democratic primary processes, is a new low, even for you.

I'm not a conservative