American Politics: Fiscal Cliffhanger

[American Legionaries]

Because the majority's agenda is bad. How is calling them obstructionists a different tune?

So if Democrats did this in red states where they could would you approve?

That'd depend on what exactly they were obstructing, but most likely I would.

[San Lumen]

And if the minority refuses to compromise at all on certain bills that a majority wants they should not be able to get passed?

Subpoena them.

This was tried this last time they did this same stunt and the authorities could not find some of them.

In your country the Parliament can't function without the mace on the table so how about the opposition party pick it up constantly and force the governing party to work with them or prevent them from enacting their agenda?

Why is that wrong but the actions of Republicans in the legislature is ok?

[Celritannia]

Subpoena them.

This was tried this last time they did this same stunt and the authorities could not find some of them.

In your country the Parliament can't function without the mace on the table so how about the opposition party pick it up constantly and force the governing party to work with them or prevent them from enacting their agenda?

Why is that wrong but the actions of Republicans in the legislature is ok?

There have been a couple of times the mace has been picked up, and then the individual was required to leave the rest of the days proceedings.
Thing is, most debates in Parliament hardly have any members attending.

Trying to compare the UK's national parliament to a US states' legislature and their functions is not a good argument due to many differences.

[Spirit of Hope]

It may also be the only way to effectively get their voices heard and their concerns addressed. Protesters and picketers likewise often obstruct the functions of society in order to have their voices heard and their concerns addressed. Democrats in other states have obstructed the functioning of government in order to get their voices heard. Obstruction is a very useful tactic at times. Acting like it is some evil thing that should never be resorted to is rather silly.

Ok so how about in every state where this is possible the party that doesn't control the state legislature walk out and keep the government from functioning.

That's not a sustainable way to govern.

And yet the world over governments and societies continue to function despite the ability for opposition organizations, government workers, and citizens ability to obstruct. This is because obstruction is a specific strategy that is only worth it in specific circumstances. When you engage in obstruction you aren't able to advance your own priorities, only impede the priorities of your opposition. Legislators filibustering or walking out aren't able to propose or vote on legislation they like, only stop legislation they don't like. Striking workers aren't getting paid but they are impeding the ability of their employer to make money. It is a strategy that only works if you are willing to pay the cost in order to stop your opposition.

In the case of Oregon, legislators are so committed to their opposition that they are loosing the ability to be re elected. That is a dramatic cost to pay for representatives that almost always strive to be re elected and yet they are committing basically political suicide because they are that apposed to legislation. It isn't like this is a surprise to legislators, it is something they would have largely known about before they engaged in the obstruction.

[San Lumen]

Ok so how about in every state where this is possible the party that doesn't control the state legislature walk out and keep the government from functioning.

That's not a sustainable way to govern.

And yet the world over governments and societies continue to function despite the ability for opposition organizations, government workers, and citizens ability to obstruct. This is because obstruction is a specific strategy that is only worth it in specific circumstances. When you engage in obstruction you aren't able to advance your own priorities, only impede the priorities of your opposition. Legislators filibustering or walking out aren't able to propose or vote on legislation they like, only stop legislation they don't like. Striking workers aren't getting paid but they are impeding the ability of their employer to make money. It is a strategy that only works if you are willing to pay the cost in order to stop your opposition.

In the case of Oregon, legislators are so committed to their opposition that they are loosing the ability to be re elected. That is a dramatic cost to pay for representatives that almost always strive to be re elected and yet they are committing basically political suicide because they are that apposed to legislation. It isn't like this is a surprise to legislators, it is something they would have largely known about before they engaged in the obstruction.

Preventing the duly elected government from functioning is not a viable long term strategy.

These people were hired to do a job and they are not refusing to show up for it and therefore should be ineligible to continue serving. If you or I had multiple unexcused absences in a row from our employment we'd be rightfully fired. The legislature should be no different.

[Tarsonis]

Because the majority's agenda is bad. How is calling them obstructionists a different tune?

So if Democrats did this in red states where they could would you approve?

The Republicans were also elected in free and fair elections, and their constituents want them to block said agenda. the majority doesn't get carte blanche to just do whatever they want, and the minority just has to sit on its hands. they are using what power they have to make their constituents concerns heard.

You have proof their constituents want them to prevent the legislature from functioning? The people voted for the amendment that bars them from reelection or does the minority that voted against the referendum's opinion matter more.

Should we know govern by what the minority wants and not what the majority voted for?

That the amendment exists, doesn't mean their constituents want them to just keel over. Thata what make them heros to people like Telconi, their sacrificing their reelection bid to stand up to a democratic supermajority and stop an agenda they oppose.

just like the Texas democrats did.

denying quorum is an age old tactic for a minority. if democrats want their agenda through they're gonna have to negotiate.

[San Lumen]

So if Democrats did this in red states where they could would you approve?



You have proof their constituents want them to prevent the legislature from functioning? The people voted for the amendment that bars them from reelection or does the minority that voted against the referendum's opinion matter more.

Should we know govern by what the minority wants and not what the majority voted for?

That the amendment exists, doesn't mean their constituents want them to just keel over. Thata what make them heros to people like Telconi, their sacrificing their reelection bid to stand up to a democratic supermajority and stop an agenda they oppose.

just like the Texas democrats did.

denying quorum is an age old tactic for a minority. if democrats want their agenda through they're gonna have to negotiate.

And if the other side is unreasonable or unwilling to negotiate and simply doesn't want the agenda the pass the people voted in via a free and fair election by the majority of the people of Oregon don't get to pass their agenda because a minority of the state population doesn't want it?

70 percent of the population of Oregon is in the Willamette valley. The minority should have more power and representation then they do?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

70 percent of the population of Oregon is in the Willamette valley. The minority should have more power and representation then they do?

tbf there is a risk that policies could unnecessarily favor populous regions and neglect less populous regions, and it’s important to find consensus where you can.

[San Lumen]

70 percent of the population of Oregon is in the Willamette valley. The minority should have more power and representation then they do?

tbf there is a risk that policies could unnecessarily favor populous regions and neglect less populous regions, and it’s important to find consensus where you can.

So certain things should not be able to get passed because a minority of the state opposes them?

[Tarsonis]

That the amendment exists, doesn't mean their constituents want them to just keel over. Thata what make them heros to people like Telconi, their sacrificing their reelection bid to stand up to a democratic supermajority and stop an agenda they oppose.

just like the Texas democrats did.

denying quorum is an age old tactic for a minority. if democrats want their agenda through they're gonna have to negotiate.

And if the other side is unreasonable or unwilling to negotiate and simply doesn't want the agenda the pass the people voted in via a free and fair election by the majority of the people of Oregon don't get to pass their agenda because a minority of the state population doesn't want it?

Then they can remedy that situation at the ballot box.

70 percent of the population of Oregon is in the Willamette valley. The minority should have more power and representation then they do?

I don't think you have a firm grasp on the power dynamics at play here: Republicans have little to no power, that's why they're resorting to such drastic measures. Republicans have no power to advance an agenda, no committee control, they can only get whatever concessions they can wrangle out of the supermajority.

I don't mean to be rude, but again, you don't seem to have a good understanding of what the job of a representative actually is. it's not to punch a clock and show up, it's to advance the agenda their constituents elected them to do. 95% takes place off the floor.

[Celritannia]

tbf there is a risk that policies could unnecessarily favor populous regions and neglect less populous regions, and it’s important to find consensus where you can.

So certain things should not be able to get passed because a minority of the state opposes them?

Democray is not about Team blue winning and getting to decide what happens next.
It is about representing and understanding the needs of all members of society, not just your core voters. If you continue to ignore a certain sect of your society, they will lean towards radicalism because they feel unheard and abandoned by the system.

Which is why a two party system and FPTP does not work.

[San Lumen]

And if the other side is unreasonable or unwilling to negotiate and simply doesn't want the agenda the pass the people voted in via a free and fair election by the majority of the people of Oregon don't get to pass their agenda because a minority of the state population doesn't want it?

Then they can remedy that situation at the ballot box.

70 percent of the population of Oregon is in the Willamette valley. The minority should have more power and representation then they do?

I don't think you have a firm grasp on the power dynamics at play here: Republicans have little to no power, that's why they're resorting to such drastic measures. Republicans have no power to advance an agenda, no committee control, they can only get whatever concessions they can wrangle out of the supermajority.

I don't mean to be rude, but again, you don't seem to have a good understanding of what the job of a representative actually is. it's not to punch a clock and show up, it's to advance the agenda their constituents elected them to do. 95% takes place off the floor.

By doing what? Getting enough seats so this kind of stunt wouldn't matter? I'm not sure thats possible.

Their constituents want them to stop government from functioning? Why don't they make that their platform? vote for us and nothing will get done every legislative session until we are the majority.

[Tarsonis]

Then they can remedy that situation at the ballot box.



I don't think you have a firm grasp on the power dynamics at play here: Republicans have little to no power, that's why they're resorting to such drastic measures. Republicans have no power to advance an agenda, no committee control, they can only get whatever concessions they can wrangle out of the supermajority.

I don't mean to be rude, but again, you don't seem to have a good understanding of what the job of a representative actually is. it's not to punch a clock and show up, it's to advance the agenda their constituents elected them to do. 95% takes place off the floor.

By doing what? Getting enough seats so this kind of stunt wouldn't matter? I'm not sure thats possible.

then they need to find a consensus.

Their constituents want them to stop government from functioning? Why don't they make that their platform? vote for us and nothing will get done every legislative session until we are the majority.

Because they don't want an unfunctioing government San, but they're willing to throw that wrench in the gears, because, to them, the agenda the democrats are advancing would be even worse. You can call it a stunt, but eventually somebody is going to blink.

That's what shutdowns are, they're a game of chicken. First one to blink, loses.

[Spirit of Hope]

And yet the world over governments and societies continue to function despite the ability for opposition organizations, government workers, and citizens ability to obstruct. This is because obstruction is a specific strategy that is only worth it in specific circumstances. When you engage in obstruction you aren't able to advance your own priorities, only impede the priorities of your opposition. Legislators filibustering or walking out aren't able to propose or vote on legislation they like, only stop legislation they don't like. Striking workers aren't getting paid but they are impeding the ability of their employer to make money. It is a strategy that only works if you are willing to pay the cost in order to stop your opposition.

In the case of Oregon, legislators are so committed to their opposition that they are loosing the ability to be re elected. That is a dramatic cost to pay for representatives that almost always strive to be re elected and yet they are committing basically political suicide because they are that apposed to legislation. It isn't like this is a surprise to legislators, it is something they would have largely known about before they engaged in the obstruction.

Preventing the duly elected government from functioning is not a viable long term strategy.

These people were hired to do a job and they are not refusing to show up for it and therefore should be ineligible to continue serving. If you or I had multiple unexcused absences in a row from our employment we'd be rightfully fired. The legislature should be no different.

So striking workers should be fired en mass?

The long term strategy isn't to stop the government from working, the strategy is to get the opposition to stop pushing laws that are opposed.

[Tarsonis]

Preventing the duly elected government from functioning is not a viable long term strategy.

These people were hired to do a job and they are not refusing to show up for it and therefore should be ineligible to continue serving. If you or I had multiple unexcused absences in a row from our employment we'd be rightfully fired. The legislature should be no different.

So striking workers should be fired en mass?

The long term strategy isn't to stop the government from working, the strategy is to get the opposition to stop pushing laws that are apposed.

Well, his track record on strikes isn't great

[San Lumen]

By doing what? Getting enough seats so this kind of stunt wouldn't matter? I'm not sure thats possible.

then they need to find a consensus.

Their constituents want them to stop government from functioning? Why don't they make that their platform? vote for us and nothing will get done every legislative session until we are the majority.

Because they don't want an unfunctioing government San, but they're willing to throw that wrench in the gears, because, to them, the agenda the democrats are advancing would be even worse. You can call it a stunt, but eventually somebody is going to blink.

That's what shutdowns are, they're a game of chicken. First one to blink, loses.

So the people the majority voted for can’t get anything done because a consensus isn’t likely to be reached?

[Neutraligon]

then they need to find a consensus.




Because they don't want an unfunctioing government San, but they're willing to throw that wrench in the gears, because, to them, the agenda the democrats are advancing would be even worse. You can call it a stunt, but eventually somebody is going to blink.

That's what shutdowns are, they're a game of chicken. First one to blink, loses.

So the people the majority voted for can’t get anything done because a consensus isn’t likely to be reached?

If that is what their constituents want and if they have sufficient numbers to prevent a quorum. This is part of what it means to say elections have consequences.

Of course this comes with major drawbacks, as bills that their constituents do want passed cannot be passed. They get to decide what is most important and weigh the wants of the constituents. This approach makes it much harder to negotiate with the majority to get things they want passed.

[Khurkhogur]

Ok, but this isn't just DeSantis (and the broader trend predates his governorship). Conservative rhetoric (if not action) in the states has taken a noticeable anti-free market turn.

I mean, sorta, but DeSantis is also scratching his private equity donors’ back with pension money, so the rhetoric often seems more like a culture war formality for the base. It’s true in DeSantis’s case that Disney and the construction industry are now trying to fuck him over for culture war bills that have ended up messing with them, but I don’t think it really reflects a deeper shift away from being the party of oligarchy and unrestricted markets.

You'll note I said conservative, not Republican. The Republican party is and always has been the party of capitalism, and like you I don't expect that to change. But the conservative movement is shifting, and the Republican party is actually in deep conflict with its own movement. I think "never Trump"ism and Tucker being fired from Fox are both emblematic of that.

[Umeria]

Real fun watching the esteemed individuals suddenly turn socialist the moment some corpo hurts the feelings of a man who needs to wear high heels for his narcissism.

Liberalism fucking sucks anyways.
And another thing, this is a pretty reasonable realignment. Socialism and conservative values (order, obedience, conformity) go well together. Capitalism and progressive values (liberty, rights-and-consent-based morality, emancipation) also go well together. There's a reason the communist bloc was by far the more socially conservative throughout the cold war. Same goes for countries that adopted capitalism later (Italy, Greece, Turkey, the US South)

The problem with this is that freedom in one's personal life is good while freedom for corporations is bad.

[Peacetime]

Liberalism fucking sucks anyways.
And another thing, this is a pretty reasonable realignment. Socialism and conservative values (order, obedience, conformity) go well together. Capitalism and progressive values (liberty, rights-and-consent-based morality, emancipation) also go well together. There's a reason the communist bloc was by far the more socially conservative throughout the cold war. Same goes for countries that adopted capitalism later (Italy, Greece, Turkey, the US South)

The problem with this is that freedom in one's personal life is good while freedom for corporations is bad.

As a dichotomy, sure. However, let's define the limits of of corporate freedom. How big should a company be allowed to get?

[Umeria]

The problem with this is that freedom in one's personal life is good while freedom for corporations is bad.

As a dichotomy, sure. However, let's define the limits of of corporate freedom. How big should a company be allowed to get?

Power is what's important, not size. I'd much rather have a corporation be larger and forced to pay a living wage, respect the right to unionize, follow environmental standards etc. than be small and not have those restrictions.

[Peacetime]

As a dichotomy, sure. However, let's define the limits of of corporate freedom. How big should a company be allowed to get?

Power is what's important, not size. I'd much rather have a corporation be larger and forced to pay a living wage, respect the right to unionize, follow environmental standards etc. than be small and not have those restrictions.

That's a fair place to start from. Putting it all into perspective, I ask because a corporation can be so large that it is able to tilt the administrative state towards it's profit-centered interests rather than the overall public interest. All said, the living wage, right to unionize, and abiding by environmental regulations are good goals for companies.

[Khurkhogur]

Liberalism fucking sucks anyways.
And another thing, this is a pretty reasonable realignment. Socialism and conservative values (order, obedience, conformity) go well together. Capitalism and progressive values (liberty, rights-and-consent-based morality, emancipation) also go well together. There's a reason the communist bloc was by far the more socially conservative throughout the cold war. Same goes for countries that adopted capitalism later (Italy, Greece, Turkey, the US South)

The problem with this is that freedom in one's personal life is good while freedom for corporations is bad.

Yeah no. Liberalism/capitalism and personal liberty are deeply intertwined. The first corporations were joint-stock companies, where every person involved in the venture invested their effort and money, splitting the profits later. That's the essence of capitalism. Without the right to pursue your own business as you see fit in an economic sense, personal liberty is totally meaningless. Deciding how people should be allowed to dispose of their personal liberty completely negates the point of personal liberty.
And the reverse is also true - why should society (under socialism) have to support you if your lifestyle is totally out of whack or if you're not contributing to society? The logic of socialism totally breaks down if one part of society works to uphold the system while another part are allowed to live however they see fit.

[Tarsonis]

then they need to find a consensus.




Because they don't want an unfunctioing government San, but they're willing to throw that wrench in the gears, because, to them, the agenda the democrats are advancing would be even worse. You can call it a stunt, but eventually somebody is going to blink.

That's what shutdowns are, they're a game of chicken. First one to blink, loses.

So the people the majority voted for can’t get anything done because a consensus isn’t likely to be reached?

Politics ain't called the art of the possible for nothing.

[Peacetime]

The problem with this is that freedom in one's personal life is good while freedom for corporations is bad.

Yeah no. Liberalism/capitalism and personal liberty are deeply intertwined. The first corporations were joint-stock companies, where every person involved in the venture invested their effort and money, splitting the profits later. That's the essence of capitalism. Without the right to pursue your own business as you see fit in an economic sense, personal liberty is totally meaningless. Deciding how people should be allowed to dispose of their personal liberty completely negates the point of personal liberty.
And the reverse is also true - why should society (under socialism) have to support you if your lifestyle is totally out of whack or if you're not contributing to society? The logic of socialism totally breaks down if one part of society works to uphold the system while another part are allowed to live however they see fit.

I believe that economic "freedom" and personal freedom have an entwined history. There is crossover from a historical perspective but when workers in a company are not necessarily the owners of the company you do get circumstances where we might be morally obligated to examine the dynamics of power that employers (owners) might have over employees. We also have to examine the implications that economic development might have upon the environment.