Debate Now Political Tactics and Putting Out Fires

[iamwhatiseem]

Well Happy Birthday IAWIS

And kudos on a very well thought out and written post that offers a lot of food for thought.

And thirty lashes with a wet noodle for that post not addressing the thread topic.

I wish you would take that post and start a separate thread in this forum. I really would like to discuss the concept you present.

Here you really need to show how it applies to the thread topic though.

Yeah...I was thinking the same thing. Once I started I just kept going!
I will remove it, and put it somewhere else.
And thanks for the BDay wishes.

Edit: Oops, I can't delete it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well Happy Birthday IAWIS

And kudos on a very well thought out and written post that offers a lot of food for thought.

And thirty lashes with a wet noodle for that post not addressing the thread topic.

I wish you would take that post and start a separate thread in this forum. I really would like to discuss the concept you present.

Here you really need to show how it applies to the thread topic though.

Yeah...I was thinking the same thing. Once I started I just kept going!
I will remove it, and put it somewhere else.
And thanks for the BDay wishes.

Edit: Oops, I can't delete it.

No problem. It was a good post. Just not for this thread. But I hope you will repost it as a new thread in this forum. We need some more activity here if this forum is going to fly and you have offered a topic that I think would make a good discussion.

And meanwhile we'll keep discussing the most reasonable and practical ways to put out fires here.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't see them pursuing an agenda against an individual. I see them pursuing their constituents opposition to what is very bad and dangerous policy not passed by Congress as all such policy should be, but issued as an executive order. They are objecting to the policy, not the person. They are attempting to use the only power given to them by the Constitution to prevent terrible policy from being enacted.

The policy as enacted by Obama is called prosecutorial discretion and it has been around for a very long time. In essence it is just a matter of prioritization so that the worst offenders are deported immediately while those that pose no threat will have their cases reviewed at a later date. If there was sufficient funding for the INS this would not have been necessary. Equally so had the House addressed the Senate immigration bill this would not be necessary.

It is feckless to accuse Obama of a "terrible policy" given that there has been an deliberate policy of obstruction that has resulted in the current situation. Needless to say the American people are well aware that it is not Obama who is at fault here and that the unreasonableness is all coming from the extreme far right who are running around with their own hair on fire.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see them pursuing an agenda against an individual. I see them pursuing their constituents opposition to what is very bad and dangerous policy not passed by Congress as all such policy should be, but issued as an executive order. They are objecting to the policy, not the person. They are attempting to use the only power given to them by the Constitution to prevent terrible policy from being enacted.

The policy as enacted by Obama is called prosecutorial discretion and it has been around for a very long time. In essence it is just a matter of prioritization so that the worst offenders are deported immediately while those that pose no threat will have their cases reviewed at a later date. If there was sufficient funding for the INS this would not have been necessary. Equally so had the House addressed the Senate immigration bill this would not be necessary.

It is feckless to accuse Obama of a "terrible policy" given that there has been an deliberate policy of obstruction that has resulted in the current situation. Needless to say the American people are well aware that it is not Obama who is at fault here and that the unreasonableness is all coming from the extreme far right who are running around with their own hair on fire.

From the OP:
3. Please address the topic as much as is reasonably possible rather than debate the pros and cons of various policy and legislation used as illustration.

I am not debating the merits or lack thereof of the issue of immigration. The point is that the GOP and their constituents do object to Obama's executive order re immigration and do not want it to go into effect. The question is how do they effectively oppose that when the minority can so easily thwart the will of the majority?

Reverse the situation. Say the Democrats are in the majority in the House and Senate but there is a Republican in the White House. The President issues an executive order to say send troops to assist Israel in ejecting all Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. (No President would do that but this is for purposes of discussion only.) The GOP is effectively filibustering any effort by the Senate to defund that order. Also is at stake is the funding of DHS that both parties support. Finally the Democratic Senate majority leader agrees to separate the two bills knowing that dooms the Israeli bill to failure.

The House Democrats however feel the Israeli issue is important enought to stand their ground and they won't budge.

Would you say the Democrats should just cave and separate a defunding of the Israeli issue, knowing that would make it certain it would not pass? Or would you think it important enough to support the House Democrats and urge them to keep it attached to the DHS funding and force the GOP to accept it? Would you encourage them to stand their ground?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Meaningless waste of time thread since the OP is changing her own "rules" once again to suit her feckless agenda.

/unsubscribe

 

[TemplarKormac]

The whole point of putting out a fire though is that the fire is the destructive thing and it must be put out.

But, I see more people trying to start them than put them out, or outrightly ignoring the fire altogether. Can't put out the fire if one party is spraying the other with the fire hose. Everyone is wet except the fire.

You don't replace the fire with something else.

Indeed, play with fire, get burned. As the old saying goes.

You just put it out so it is no longer destructive and doesn't keep making things worse.

Agreed. But there have to be enough people willing to fight it, not flee in fear at the sight.

The GOP believes the President's executive order overriding the immigration laws is destructive and could cause irreparable harm if allowed to go into effect.

But are in response doing something even more dangerous, attempting to defund the entire DHS. That is a prime example of pouring gasoline on the fire.

They believe they need to put it out. Many of us who elected them believe they need to put it out.

But at what cost? They know there are less inflammatory ways to put it out.

And they cannot put it out as a stand alone bill because the Senate Democrats will continue to filibuster it to death and, even if it did pass, President Obama will veto the legislation.

Well, then the fire will never be put out; it will burn out of control, because Republicans are taking too many drastic measures, while Democrats aren't willing to take any measures at all.

So. . . .EVERYBODY wants to fund the DHS. So they tied the immigration defunding to the DHS funding to force the Senate Democrats to end their filibuster so the elected representatives of the people can vote on it. The vote will almost certainly be to defund the immigration policy while funding the DHS.

Even still, it will fail. Unfortunately.

So, if the immigration policy is indeed a fire that needs to be put out--or with any other legislation that is so bad it is a fire that needs to be put out--I don't know what the alternative will be to bundling the bills together that way.

It is a stalemate only a Republican win in the White House will solve...in theory.

At the same time, the practice has also forced us to accept a lot of bad stuff in order to get necessary stuff. So that's the flip side of that coin.

But as I see it, the bad outweighs the good. Color me a natural pessimist, but it seems you get more bad for good than good for bad...so to speak.

 

[Foxfyre]

I really dislike chopped up posts like that T.K.--sorry because I know it takes some time and effort to produce them--so I'll just make one comment about it. You say there are less inflammatory ways to put out the immigration fire than what the GOP is doing. Frankly I don't see any other way as the situation exists.

What else could they do?

On a straight up or down vote in the House and Senate, the President's executive order is dead. But if the Senate Democrats will not allow it to come to a vote and the President will veto it if it does, then what else can the GOP do that would not be so 'inflammatory'?

 

[jwoodie]

Politics is a microcosm of society where, except in times of grave emergency, people pretend to cooperate while pursuing their own interests. It used to be that a camel was a horse designed by a committee. Now it's a duck billed platypus. That is why government should be kept as small as possible.

 

[Foxfyre]

Politics is a microcosm of society where, except in times of grave emergency, people pretend to cooperate while pursuing their own interests. It used to be that a camel was a horse designed by a committee. Now it's a duck billed platypus. That is why government should be kept as small as possible.

Agreed. But what should Congress do to stop what they consider illegal or very bad acts of the President (or whomever) if the minority party won't allow them to pass legislation to do it? How do we put out that fire?

If they can't even put out the fires, what chance to they have to take any measures to downsize government?

 

[jwoodie]

The policy as enacted by Obama is called prosecutorial discretion and it has been around for a very long time. In essence it is just a matter of prioritization so that the worst offenders are deported immediately while those that pose no threat will have their cases reviewed at a later date. If there was sufficient funding for the INS this would not have been necessary. Equally so had the House addressed the Senate immigration bill this would not be necessary.

It is feckless to accuse Obama of a "terrible policy" given that there has been an deliberate policy of obstruction that has resulted in the current situation. Needless to say the American people are well aware that it is not Obama who is at fault here and that the unreasonableness is all coming from the extreme far right who are running around with their own hair on fire.

Prosecutorial discretion applies to individual cases. Instead, Obama has decided permanently exclude an entire class of person from judicial review. Insufficient INS funding and failure to pass the Senate's immigration bill are not justifications for this action.

Similarly, alleged legislative "obstruction" does not confer any power on the Executive branch to ignore or amend federal law. Yes, the American people are aware of this policy, and they oppose it.

 

[Darkwind]

In the NYT op ed section yesterday, Gail Collins criticizes Republican actions opposing Democratic legislation but not proposing legislation of their own. It is not the illustrations that she used to make her point that are the focus of this discussion, but the concept of opposing legislation without offering a specific alternative. Most especially when it could compromise necessary legislation. The op ed piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/opinion/gail-collins-and-now-homeland-insecurity.html?_r=0

Whether accurate or not, the GOP has often been criticized for opposing while not offering an alternative to legislation re health care reform, immigration reform, and other controversial issues. (And yes, the Democrats have also been labeled 'the party of no' as well.)

To this kind of criticism, one of Thomas Sowell's most famous lines asks:
"No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: 'But what would you replace it with?' When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?"

The point of course is whether bad legislation is better than no legislation at all.

As an example only: The GOP has tried to force defunding of what they consider a disastrous immigration policy by tying that defunding to the Homeland Security funding bill that they support. Some say this is the only way to force President Obama to back off a disastrous immigration policy--it is putting out the fire. Others say that this is dirty pool and unfair and partisan tactics at their worst most especially when the GOP has not offered its own immigration reform legislation.

Rules for this discussion:

1. No ad hominem re members participating. Address the member's post and make no comment on the character or motive or intent etc. of the member himself or herself.

2. No ad hominem re Republicans or Democrats or any other political party or ideology. Criticism of specific policies they promote that relate to the topic is fair game, but do not comment on the character, motive, or intent etc. of the political parties themselves.

3. Please address the topic as much as is reasonably possible rather than debate the pros and cons of various policy and legislation used as illustration.

4. If you don't like Gail Collins or Thomas Sowell or the content of what they write, I don't care and we won't be discussing them. They or any other personalities are not the issue here. The opposing concepts they offer is.

THE QUESTION(S) TO BE DISCUSSED:

Is it reasonable to require elected government officials to have an alternative to a policy or legislation that they oppose before they oppose it?

Or is a bad policy in itself sufficient reason to oppose it?

And is it fair to tie opposing legislation to necessary legislation in order to force the other side to accept both?

Reasonable? Possibly. Required? No. Today, many bills and legislation is written not for the purpose of correcting a problem, but as a means of placing the opposition party into a corner, or the purpose of the legislation is to increase the power of the legislator or government. In many ways, the purpose of the pressure to replace legislation with an alternative is to use the alternative as a political lead pipe to beat the opponent in the media.

Bad policy alone IS sufficient reason for opposition. After all, if someone introduced legislation to reinstate slavery, what would be a replacement bill? Less restrictive slavery? It cannot be argued that opposition legislation to slavery is to end slavery, for slavery has already been done away with. Many such bills (far to many to list here) are of this nature.

It is not fair to tie opposing legislation to necessary legislation. Simply put, legislation should stand or fail on its own.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the NYT op ed section yesterday, Gail Collins criticizes Republican actions opposing Democratic legislation but not proposing legislation of their own. It is not the illustrations that she used to make her point that are the focus of this discussion, but the concept of opposing legislation without offering a specific alternative. Most especially when it could compromise necessary legislation. The op ed piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/opinion/gail-collins-and-now-homeland-insecurity.html?_r=0

Whether accurate or not, the GOP has often been criticized for opposing while not offering an alternative to legislation re health care reform, immigration reform, and other controversial issues. (And yes, the Democrats have also been labeled 'the party of no' as well.)

To this kind of criticism, one of Thomas Sowell's most famous lines asks:
"No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: 'But what would you replace it with?' When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?"

The point of course is whether bad legislation is better than no legislation at all.

As an example only: The GOP has tried to force defunding of what they consider a disastrous immigration policy by tying that defunding to the Homeland Security funding bill that they support. Some say this is the only way to force President Obama to back off a disastrous immigration policy--it is putting out the fire. Others say that this is dirty pool and unfair and partisan tactics at their worst most especially when the GOP has not offered its own immigration reform legislation.

Rules for this discussion:

1. No ad hominem re members participating. Address the member's post and make no comment on the character or motive or intent etc. of the member himself or herself.

2. No ad hominem re Republicans or Democrats or any other political party or ideology. Criticism of specific policies they promote that relate to the topic is fair game, but do not comment on the character, motive, or intent etc. of the political parties themselves.

3. Please address the topic as much as is reasonably possible rather than debate the pros and cons of various policy and legislation used as illustration.

4. If you don't like Gail Collins or Thomas Sowell or the content of what they write, I don't care and we won't be discussing them. They or any other personalities are not the issue here. The opposing concepts they offer is.

THE QUESTION(S) TO BE DISCUSSED:

Is it reasonable to require elected government officials to have an alternative to a policy or legislation that they oppose before they oppose it?

Or is a bad policy in itself sufficient reason to oppose it?

And is it fair to tie opposing legislation to necessary legislation in order to force the other side to accept both?

Reasonable? Possibly. Required? No. Today, many bills and legislation is written not for the purpose of correcting a problem, but as a means of placing the opposition party into a corner, or the purpose of the legislation is to increase the power of the legislator or government. In many ways, the purpose of the pressure to replace legislation with an alternative is to use the alternative as a political lead pipe to beat the opponent in the media.

Bad policy alone IS sufficient reason for opposition. After all, if someone introduced legislation to reinstate slavery, what would be a replacement bill? Less restrictive slavery? It cannot be argued that opposition legislation to slavery is to end slavery, for slavery has already been done away with. Many such bills (far to many to list here) are of this nature.

It is not fair to tie opposing legislation to necessary legislation. Simply put, legislation should stand or fail on its own.

Great analogy Darkwind. So if Congress passes legislation to end slavery (at the extreme) or to prohibit a poll tax required to vote in federal elections (extreme enough) or to rescind federal laws banning certain recreational drugs (not at all extreme and something many people argue for), what do they replace those things with?

Back in 1990 Congress passed a luxury tax on expensive pleasure boats on the theory anybody who could afford a $100,000 boat wouldn't mind paying a 10% tax to the federal government. The result? Rich people who could afford such boats were either not buying them or were buying them overseas. The tax brought in a measly $3 million but caused the layoff of 50,000 workers in the boat industry and seriously economically hurt all the suppliers who had been doing business with the boat building industry that now lay in shambles. It is probable that nobody was able to even calculate the enormous loss to the U.S. economy. When such a tax is repealed, you don't replace it with another one. You just repeal it.

So I agree. Bad legislation is plenty of justification to repeal a law. And just like when you put out a fire, you don't replace it with something else. You just put it out so there's opportunity to repair the damage that it did.

 

[Foxfyre]

And returning to the other component of this discussion, from the OP:

And is it fair to tie opposing legislation to necessary legislation in order to force the other side to accept both?​

We have a situation in which the Senate minority filibusters a bill to death to keep it from coming to a vote. . . .and/or the President says he'll veto the legislation if it passes and reaches his desk.

In this case the will of the people is legally thwarted even though a substantial majority of the people elected their representatives mostly to deal with ISSUE A that they strongly want to pass or be eliminated.

So again the question is (rephrased for possibly more clarity):

The majority in Congress and the majority of the people want ISSUE A to be passed. The minority in Congress and the President oppose it.

The majority and minority in Congress, the President, and the majority of the people want ISSUE B to be passed.

Pretend you are a member of the majority in Congress.

Is it fair and reasonable for ISSUE A and ISSUE B to be bundled together in a single bill in an effort to persuade the minority to accept ISSUE A?

And if the minority filibusters the bundled bill or the President vetoes it, whose fault is it that the bill didn't pass?