4 ms·

You stated that President Obama ignored the Republicans for his first two years in office, but the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009, more than two years a

You stated that President Obama ignored the Republicans for his first two years in office, but the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009, more than two years after he took office. I don't see how this supports your point, because it doesn't take place during the time period that you're talking about. Harry Reid altered Senate rules in 2011, which is well after Obama served two years in office. Again, can you provide an example of how Obama ignored the Republicans during his first two years in office? You say that there are many examples of this sort of behavior, but you failed to provide any of them. Edit: And let's be clear here, we've already shifted goalposts once; initially I asked you to provide examples of how the Republicans made efforts to cooperate with President Obama during his first two years in office, and you very neatly juked that by saying "well, he ignored them for his first two years and it made them mad". If you've made an assertion that you can't provide evidence for, please say that you are wrong; I don't want to have to chase your point through this argument.

nickff 10y ago
>You stated that President Obama ignored the Republicans for his first two years in office, but the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009, more than two years after he took office. I don't see how this supports your point, because it doesn't take place during the time period that you're talking about. Obamacare was actually enacted in March of 2010, just over a year after Obama took office in January of 2009.[1][2] The 'nuclear option' was used in October 2011, and I meant to use it as an example of the Democratic party continuing shutting the senate Republicans out of the process.[3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Afforda... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Presidency_.28since_2009.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Presidency_.28sin... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_of_nuclear_option_during_Obama_presidency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_of_nuclear_...
- CocaKoala 10y ago
  You're correct about the ACA; I misremembered when President Obama took office, and I apologize for that. I will contest the 'nuclear option', though; I can see how you can argue that it shuts the Senate Republicans out of the process, but I can see an equal argument that it was a reaction to an overuse of the filibuster to block legislative progress; Reid filed for cloture 137 times in 2007/8, and 139 times in 2009/10. Not every cloture motion necessarily means a filibuster, but similarly not every filibuster results in a cloture; since filibusters are challenging to count, cloture motions seem like a reasonable way to measure obstruction [1]. If Reid had to file a cloture motion approximately once a week during Obama's first year in office, I feel like that indicates a trend of "our way or the highway" from the Republicans; rather than pushing to change and modify legislature, the Republicans simply rejected things they didn't like and tried to take their toys home. If they're not meaningfully participating in the process (and I would say that filibustering at least once a week is not meaningfully participating; I do not believe that significant legislation or confirmation that is so deeply anathema to the Republican mindset that it cannot POSSIBLY be allowed to pass and be inflicted on the American public happens on a weekly basis), then it's hard for me to see how taking away this option that they've abused is shutting them out. They're still welcome to participate, but screaming so loud that nobody else can talk is not participation. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/15/how-we-count-senate-filibusters-and-why-it-matters/?utm_term=.34f9d0b8e330 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/1...
  - nickff 10y ago
    The problem with saying that one side 'needed' to shut out the other, is that it assumes the filibustering party was wrong. It is impossible to differentiate (in a viewpoint-neutral way) who was being 'difficult', or saying 'my way or the highway'. Another example is how the Republicans keep passing budgets, and the President keeps veto-ing them; who is in the wrong here? What about when Obama proposes budgets that the Republicans refuse to pass? You cannot make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of who (if anyone) is wrong. If I ask you for something, and you say 'no', it is impossible to determine who was being unreasonable without taking a view on the substance of the matter, even if you assume that some action is necessary.
    - CocaKoala 10y ago
      But government requires compromise, and when you say "No" then you're refusing to compromise. I understand that sometimes there are some things that a party might refuse to compromise on, and I believe that's a valid use of the filibuster to block progress. Are you trying to tell me that every single filibuster from 2009 and 2010 was because the issue was so deeply offensive to the Republicans and everything they stand for as a party and an ideological mindset that compromise was impossible? It might not be possible to make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of any particular issue, but I believe it is possible to make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of the criticality of a particular issue. When your job is to compromise and you agree a priori that whatever is suggested, you will refuse to consider, I think that's a clear abuse of your ability to say "No", even without needing to make a value judgement on any particular "No" that was said.

nickff 10y ago

>You stated that President Obama ignored the Republicans for his first two years in office, but the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009, more than two years after he took office. I don't see how this supports your point, because it doesn't take place during the time period that you're talking about. Obamacare was actually enacted in March of 2010, just over a year after Obama took office in January of 2009.[1][2] The 'nuclear option' was used in October 2011, and I meant to use it as an example of the Democratic party continuing shutting the senate Republicans out of the process.[3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Afforda... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Presidency_.28since_2009.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Presidency_.28sin... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_of_nuclear_option_during_Obama_presidency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_of_nuclear_...

CocaKoala 10y ago
You're correct about the ACA; I misremembered when President Obama took office, and I apologize for that. I will contest the 'nuclear option', though; I can see how you can argue that it shuts the Senate Republicans out of the process, but I can see an equal argument that it was a reaction to an overuse of the filibuster to block legislative progress; Reid filed for cloture 137 times in 2007/8, and 139 times in 2009/10. Not every cloture motion necessarily means a filibuster, but similarly not every filibuster results in a cloture; since filibusters are challenging to count, cloture motions seem like a reasonable way to measure obstruction [1]. If Reid had to file a cloture motion approximately once a week during Obama's first year in office, I feel like that indicates a trend of "our way or the highway" from the Republicans; rather than pushing to change and modify legislature, the Republicans simply rejected things they didn't like and tried to take their toys home. If they're not meaningfully participating in the process (and I would say that filibustering at least once a week is not meaningfully participating; I do not believe that significant legislation or confirmation that is so deeply anathema to the Republican mindset that it cannot POSSIBLY be allowed to pass and be inflicted on the American public happens on a weekly basis), then it's hard for me to see how taking away this option that they've abused is shutting them out. They're still welcome to participate, but screaming so loud that nobody else can talk is not participation. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/15/how-we-count-senate-filibusters-and-why-it-matters/?utm_term=.34f9d0b8e330 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/1...
- nickff 10y ago
  The problem with saying that one side 'needed' to shut out the other, is that it assumes the filibustering party was wrong. It is impossible to differentiate (in a viewpoint-neutral way) who was being 'difficult', or saying 'my way or the highway'. Another example is how the Republicans keep passing budgets, and the President keeps veto-ing them; who is in the wrong here? What about when Obama proposes budgets that the Republicans refuse to pass? You cannot make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of who (if anyone) is wrong. If I ask you for something, and you say 'no', it is impossible to determine who was being unreasonable without taking a view on the substance of the matter, even if you assume that some action is necessary.
  - CocaKoala 10y ago
    But government requires compromise, and when you say "No" then you're refusing to compromise. I understand that sometimes there are some things that a party might refuse to compromise on, and I believe that's a valid use of the filibuster to block progress. Are you trying to tell me that every single filibuster from 2009 and 2010 was because the issue was so deeply offensive to the Republicans and everything they stand for as a party and an ideological mindset that compromise was impossible? It might not be possible to make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of any particular issue, but I believe it is possible to make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of the criticality of a particular issue. When your job is to compromise and you agree a priori that whatever is suggested, you will refuse to consider, I think that's a clear abuse of your ability to say "No", even without needing to make a value judgement on any particular "No" that was said.