RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence

RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 9:29:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: They are legislating as they were elected to legislate. Threatening to shut down the entire U.S. government (upending the lives of federal workers used as pawns, cutting off services for countless citizens, and making us a global laughingstock) strikes me more as blackmailing than legislating. But then, perspectives vary. The same paintbrush that you use to paint the republicans strikes equally well at democrats.

Phydeaux -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 9:38:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri When has the majority of people been in favor of Obamacare or PPACA? Ever since it was passed. Just check the polling where it is described or not called obamacare. http://kff.org/interactive/health-tracking-poll-exploring-the-publics-views-on-the-affordable-care-act-aca/ Yep, there were times. But, for most of the time the KFF graph shows more people were against it. That poll is by one of obama's shill groups. Notoriously, egregiously biased, as they stand to make billions on dollars in health care services. For a much more real poll go to real clear politics.com Look under polls. They have tracked the popularity of the healthcare since its inception, averaging the top 10 creditable polls. The affordable care act resistance has been creditable, determined and isn't going away.

TheHeretic -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 9:40:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: They are legislating as they were elected to legislate. Threatening to shut down the entire U.S. government (upending the lives of federal workers used as pawns, cutting off services for countless citizens, and making us a global laughingstock) strikes me more as blackmailing than legislating. But then, perspectives vary. That is a way to see it, DC. As far as being a global laughingstock though, the President has already accomplished that with his Syria fiasco. The President has stated he will not compromise, and will not work with them. Ok. Let's see if that works out better than his last red line.

Phydeaux -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 9:44:15 AM)
An analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the CBO from September 2012 shows that in 2016, half of the tax imposed by the individual mandate will fall on those making an annual income of less than $120,000 for a family of four, or $59,000 for an individual. Families of four making $72,000 or less (and individuals making $35,400 or less) will bear 35 percent of the mandate tax. This is a direct tax on the middle class. Through its proposed $1 trillion in tax increases, the $716 billion in Medicare cuts, and the individual mandates and regulations, it is clear that Obamacare will swiftly harm our country. Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/27/paul-suffering-the-sting-of-obamacare/#ixzz2gCrRUV18 Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

BamaD -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 9:53:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 maybe it was not due to the gerrymandering but that they candidated one jerk too much No they moved the district borders around to assured massive advantages in districts that were majority black. In doing so they moved to many Democrats from a contested district and lost it.

BamaD -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 9:58:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Aldredge Gerry. Democrat. Elbridge Gerry (hard G) and he was a (Jeffersonian) Republican. He was also a very important Founder and was just about everywhere a patriot could be around Boston from 1770-1775. He was a founding member of the "Committee of Safety" and just about single highhandedly, ensured the storing of weapons and ammunition at Concord. Gerry was also major player in both the Second Continental Congress and in the Constitutional Convention. The Republican party did not exist until 1856 I doubt that he was a member. To be fair the democratic party did not exist until 1828 so I doubt he was a democrat either.

cloudboy -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 1:10:18 PM)
DS makes himself clear when he thinks the USA not paying its bills (and risking a much higher interest rate on the national debt) is a mainstream, acceptable form of politics. I have no desire to try and reposition Pluto closer to the sun, and there is a longstanding futility on the part of anyone who debates him. I don't mind politicians being zealous, but threatening the overall well-being of the economy and our nations credit rating because your own party can't muster the votes at the polls is unacceptable.

cloudboy -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 1:12:11 PM)
quote: The same paintbrush that you use to paint the republicans strikes equally well at democrats. Not in this particular case.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 1:22:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy DS makes himself clear when he thinks the USA not paying its bills (and risking a much higher interest rate on the national debt) is a mainstream, acceptable form of politics. I have no desire to try and reposition Pluto closer to the sun, and there is a longstanding futility on the part of anyone who debates him. I don't mind politicians being zealous, but threatening the overall well-being of the economy and our nations credit rating because your own party can't muster the votes at the polls is unacceptable. The House passed a spending bill that funds all of government except for Obamacare. Sure sounds like they are willing to pay the bills, doesn't it?

DomKen -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 1:42:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy DS makes himself clear when he thinks the USA not paying its bills (and risking a much higher interest rate on the national debt) is a mainstream, acceptable form of politics. I have no desire to try and reposition Pluto closer to the sun, and there is a longstanding futility on the part of anyone who debates him. I don't mind politicians being zealous, but threatening the overall well-being of the economy and our nations credit rating because your own party can't muster the votes at the polls is unacceptable. The House passed a spending bill that funds all of government except for Obamacare. Sure sounds like they are willing to pay the bills, doesn't it? No. It does not. They know that the other two elements of the government that must agree will not go along with that. The sad thing is what refusing funding for the ACA would do. It would not stop the various insurance regulations or state run exchanges. All if would stop are the federally run exchanges in those states that have refused to set up their own exchanges. So what the Republicans are doing is trying to deny health care to their own voters.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 2:33:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy DS makes himself clear when he thinks the USA not paying its bills (and risking a much higher interest rate on the national debt) is a mainstream, acceptable form of politics. I have no desire to try and reposition Pluto closer to the sun, and there is a longstanding futility on the part of anyone who debates him. I don't mind politicians being zealous, but threatening the overall well-being of the economy and our nations credit rating because your own party can't muster the votes at the polls is unacceptable. The House passed a spending bill that funds all of government except for Obamacare. Sure sounds like they are willing to pay the bills, doesn't it? No. It does not. They know that the other two elements of the government that must agree will not go along with that. The sad thing is what refusing funding for the ACA would do. It would not stop the various insurance regulations or state run exchanges. All if would stop are the federally run exchanges in those states that have refused to set up their own exchanges. So what the Republicans are doing is trying to deny health care to their own voters. That's just it, Ken. The House passed a bill. According to you, it's on the House to pass bills that will also pass the Senate and get the President's signature. That sure sounds like there is no reason to have two chambers of Congress when one shares the same party as the President. The House only has to pass bills that will pass the House. If that bill doesn't pass the Senate, there will have to be negotiating. If a bill passes both chambers of Congress, is it okay if the President vetoes it, or has he been required to sign it?

DomKen -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 3:14:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy DS makes himself clear when he thinks the USA not paying its bills (and risking a much higher interest rate on the national debt) is a mainstream, acceptable form of politics. I have no desire to try and reposition Pluto closer to the sun, and there is a longstanding futility on the part of anyone who debates him. I don't mind politicians being zealous, but threatening the overall well-being of the economy and our nations credit rating because your own party can't muster the votes at the polls is unacceptable. The House passed a spending bill that funds all of government except for Obamacare. Sure sounds like they are willing to pay the bills, doesn't it? No. It does not. They know that the other two elements of the government that must agree will not go along with that. The sad thing is what refusing funding for the ACA would do. It would not stop the various insurance regulations or state run exchanges. All if would stop are the federally run exchanges in those states that have refused to set up their own exchanges. So what the Republicans are doing is trying to deny health care to their own voters. That's just it, Ken. The House passed a bill. According to you, it's on the House to pass bills that will also pass the Senate and get the President's signature. That sure sounds like there is no reason to have two chambers of Congress when one shares the same party as the President. The House only has to pass bills that will pass the House. If that bill doesn't pass the Senate, there will have to be negotiating. There has been negotiating. The Senate passed their version. If the House was actually interested in compromise they could have created a conference committee with the Senate and worked out the differences and then put a bill out that would pass both. But that no longer happens. The House routinely refuses to appoint any conference committee members so nothing gets done. Instead look at what the House did they're about to pass yet another gutting of the ACA, with a special windfall for medical device makers no less, knowing full well it won't pass the Senate much less get the President's signature and that even in the House they don't have the votes to override that veto. It is not just wrong it is reckless and damaging to this nation. quote: If a bill passes both chambers of Congress, is it okay if the President vetoes it, or has he been required to sign it? No. All 3 bodies decide whether to support a bill or not. If any one of them really wants a bill to succeed it is incumbent on that one to get the consent of the other two. Only in those rare cases where 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress disagree with a veto does that change.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 3:21:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If a bill passes both chambers of Congress, is it okay if the President vetoes it, or has he been required to sign it? No. All 3 bodies decide whether to support a bill or not. If any one of them really wants a bill to succeed it is incumbent on that one to get the consent of the other two. Only in those rare cases where 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress disagree with a veto does that change. No, Ken. The House passes a bill. The Senate can either pass that bill, or pass one of their own crafting. If the Senate doesn't pass the House bill, the bill goes to the House for a vote. That's the way it happens. Thus, the House passed a bill. The Senate didn't pass that bill, but passed their own. The ball is now in the House's court, to either pass the Senate bill, or pass their own. I will agree that waiting until the last week is in bad form.

DomKen -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 3:51:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If a bill passes both chambers of Congress, is it okay if the President vetoes it, or has he been required to sign it? No. All 3 bodies decide whether to support a bill or not. If any one of them really wants a bill to succeed it is incumbent on that one to get the consent of the other two. Only in those rare cases where 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress disagree with a veto does that change. No, Ken. The House passes a bill. The Senate can either pass that bill, or pass one of their own crafting. If the Senate doesn't pass the House bill, the bill goes to the House for a vote. That's the way it happens. Thus, the House passed a bill. The Senate didn't pass that bill, but passed their own. The ball is now in the House's court, to either pass the Senate bill, or pass their own. I will agree that waiting until the last week is in bad form. NO! That is not the way it happens. When the House was functional if the two bodies passed different versions of the same bill both would appoint members to a conference committee that would work out the differences and both bodies would then pass that consensus bill. The House just simply no longer appoints conferees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee

Phydeaux -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 7:16:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Aldredge Gerry. Democrat. Elbridge Gerry (hard G) and he was a (Jeffersonian) Republican. He was also a very important Founder and was just about everywhere a patriot could be around Boston from 1770-1775. He was a founding member of the "Committee of Safety" and just about single highhandedly, ensured the storing of weapons and ammunition at Concord. Gerry was also major player in both the Second Continental Congress and in the Constitutional Convention. The Republican party did not exist until 1856 I doubt that he was a member. To be fair the democratic party did not exist until 1828 so I doubt he was a democrat either. The party was Democratic republican party, part of which and followed andrew jackson and vanburen and became the democrat party.

Phydeaux -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 7:18:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If a bill passes both chambers of Congress, is it okay if the President vetoes it, or has he been required to sign it? No. All 3 bodies decide whether to support a bill or not. If any one of them really wants a bill to succeed it is incumbent on that one to get the consent of the other two. Only in those rare cases where 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress disagree with a veto does that change. No, Ken. The House passes a bill. The Senate can either pass that bill, or pass one of their own crafting. If the Senate doesn't pass the House bill, the bill goes to the House for a vote. That's the way it happens. Thus, the House passed a bill. The Senate didn't pass that bill, but passed their own. The ball is now in the House's court, to either pass the Senate bill, or pass their own. I will agree that waiting until the last week is in bad form. NO! That is not the way it happens. When the House was functional if the two bodies passed different versions of the same bill both would appoint members to a conference committee that would work out the differences and both bodies would then pass that consensus bill. The House just simply no longer appoints conferees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee You're both right. in the past conference committees were set up to reach a compromise between house and senate bills. There is no requirement in the constitution to so do however. The constituion does require the same bill to be passed in the house and the senate. Appropriation bills must originate in the house. But you can also make the bills identical by amendment, and not conference commmittee.

Phydeaux -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 7:25:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy DS makes himself clear when he thinks the USA not paying its bills (and risking a much higher interest rate on the national debt) is a mainstream, acceptable form of politics. I have no desire to try and reposition Pluto closer to the sun, and there is a longstanding futility on the part of anyone who debates him. I don't mind politicians being zealous, but threatening the overall well-being of the economy and our nations credit rating because your own party can't muster the votes at the polls is unacceptable. The House passed a spending bill that funds all of government except for Obamacare. Sure sounds like they are willing to pay the bills, doesn't it? No. It does not. They know that the other two elements of the government that must agree will not go along with that. The sad thing is what refusing funding for the ACA would do. It would not stop the various insurance regulations or state run exchanges. All if would stop are the federally run exchanges in those states that have refused to set up their own exchanges. So what the Republicans are doing is trying to deny health care to their own voters. That's just it, Ken. The House passed a bill. According to you, it's on the House to pass bills that will also pass the Senate and get the President's signature. That sure sounds like there is no reason to have two chambers of Congress when one shares the same party as the President. The House only has to pass bills that will pass the House. If that bill doesn't pass the Senate, there will have to be negotiating. There has been negotiating. The Senate passed their version. If the House was actually interested in compromise they could have created a conference committee with the Senate and worked out the differences and then put a bill out that would pass both. But that no longer happens. The House routinely refuses to appoint any conference committee members so nothing gets done. Instead look at what the House did they're about to pass yet another gutting of the ACA, with a special windfall for medical device makers no less, knowing full well it won't pass the Senate much less get the President's signature and that even in the House they don't have the votes to override that veto. It is not just wrong it is reckless and damaging to this nation. quote: If a bill passes both chambers of Congress, is it okay if the President vetoes it, or has he been required to sign it? No. All 3 bodies decide whether to support a bill or not. If any one of them really wants a bill to succeed it is incumbent on that one to get the consent of the other two. Only in those rare cases where 2/3rds of both Houses of Congress disagree with a veto does that change. Its just as wrong for the democrats to vote down the house bill as it is for republicans to block obamacare. Democrats won't see it this way, bu tthey have the power of the senate. They can waste as much time on this as they want. Means fewer obama appointees. Belgium did without an effective govt for what.. 18 months?

Phydeaux -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 7:26:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy I don't disagree but only ONE of the two party's squeals like a stuck pig and fights tooth and nail to stop anything that would reform and stop gerrymandering. And that would be the democrat party. Remember all the squeeeealing about voter id?

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 9:59:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Aldredge Gerry. Democrat. Elbridge Gerry (hard G) and he was a (Jeffersonian) Republican. He was also a very important Founder and was just about everywhere a patriot could be around Boston from 1770-1775. He was a founding member of the "Committee of Safety" and just about single highhandedly, ensured the storing of weapons and ammunition at Concord. Gerry was also major player in both the Second Continental Congress and in the Constitutional Convention. The Republican party did not exist until 1856 I doubt that he was a member. To be fair the democratic party did not exist until 1828 so I doubt he was a democrat either. Ummmm... No, the first Republican Party evolved from the Anti-Federalist movement and are called Jeffersonian Republican's by historians to differentiate from the Republican Party (The GOP) that formed out of the ashes of the Whigs. Jefferson and his followers considered themselves Republicans and the opposed The Federalists. Though the today's Democrat Party could claim the Jefferson Republicans as founders, Jefferson's Republicans for the most part became the sole political party in the United States and the era following the Treaty of Ghent became known as The Era of Good Feeling. By 1824 the Republicans fractured into the National Republicans led by John Quincy Adams (The would soon morph into the Whig Party and what is now the modern Democrats who originated as Jacksonian Democrat-Republicans.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Gerrymandering -- Unintended Consequence (9/28/2013 10:04:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux The party was Democratic republican party, part of which and followed andrew jackson and vanburen and became the democrat party. The Democratic-Republican moniker is used by political scientists while Republican or Jeffersonian Republican is used by historians. Although you can find some usage at the time of democrat-republican (note the lower case) most of the contemporary writing at the time, as well as the men themselves, used Republicans.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625