• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

GOP looks impotent with all these failed Obamacare repeals

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
They need to do what the Dems should have and put health care above politics, but they are too much part of the system so they have neither plan nor clue.
 
Balt said:
I know they would never vote for Obama, but the question is who will actually show up to the polls on election day.
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking at best. The right has pretty much saturated the "I hate Obama" market.. I don't see how people would hate him more because of the SCOTUS decision. But there are a lot of people in the middle who no longer have a specific reason to oppose him -- the claim that the ACA was unconstitutional.
 
thraashman said:
Read the following in a CNN article about the House vote.

Prior to the final vote, the House rejected a Democratic motion that would have required any legislator supporting the repeal measure to give up government-provided health care.
Click to expand...
Shocking that the GOP wouldn't be willing to lower themselves to the level of the people they claim they represent.
Click to expand...

Most of the people they represent get employer provided health care. Why is it any surprise that they expect to receive heath care from their job as a legislator?

Maybe the Republicans should add a measure that any legislator that votes against tax cuts has to pay 100% of their income in taxes?
 
CharlesKozierok said:
Wishful thinking at best. The right has pretty much saturated the "I hate Obama" market.. I don't see how people would hate him more because of the SCOTUS decision. But there are a lot of people in the middle who no longer have a specific reason to oppose him -- the claim that the ACA was unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Hard to say. A lot of tea partiers may have been prepared to reject both Obama and Romney. At least now, despite their lukewarm feelings for Romney, they have one huge issue that will get them to vote for him.
 
Balt said:
Hard to say. A lot of tea partiers may have been prepared to reject both Obama and Romney. At least now, despite their lukewarm feelings for Romney, they have one huge issue that will get them to vote for him.
Click to expand...

Independents might factor in as well. It depends on too many things but I believe Obama best hope independent turn out is low.
 
Balt said:
Hard to say. A lot of tea partiers may have been prepared to reject both Obama and Romney. At least now, despite their lukewarm feelings for Romney, they have one huge issue that will get them to vote for him.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I honestly think you guys are grasping at straws here.

Tea partiers are pretty much entirely very politically active Republicans. Nearly all of them were already going to vote Romney to get Obama out, no matter what they think of him personally.

As for independents, their support for the bill is up by 11 points since the ruling.
 
highland145 said:
Thought that, since it was a "tax", only needed 51.
Click to expand...

Uhh, no. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster, actually force a vote on any measure. Repubs have been pioneering that particular approach to legislation & bipartisanship...

I doubt that the ongoing raving is selling well to independents, or that Romney can sell 'em his program, such as it is.

The vast majority of Americans support tax increases for the Rich, Romney wants to cut their taxes to nothing. The vast majority of Americans support SS & Medicare, while the Romney/Ryan budget would slash benefits enormously. Romney has issues from his time with Bain capital, one of the most successful efforts of the Lootocracy ever conceived, and his personal finances, as well. He has perhaps $100M in an IRA, for example, and lots of offshore trust money transferred to his wife so as to avoid disclosure. He epitomizes why some things that are perfectly legal shouldn't be, and will obviously fight to increase the advantages that America's wealthiest enjoy in that regard. They're "his people", and the rest of us obviously aren't.
 
Independents really do not care for either candidate. That means a probable low independent turn out. Typically that changes when people are unhappy about something so a larger turnout is likely to go against Obama. That isn't a prediction of high probability and I haven't any idea what will happen. It's merely an explanation of why I think a heavy turnout would not bode well. Do you have a link to the poll about independents?
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Independents really do not care for either candidate. That means a probable low independent turn out. Typically that changes when people are unhappy about something so a larger turnout is likely to go against Obama.
Click to expand...

Except there is no evidence that they are unhappy about the decision. The only people unhappy are the ones that have hated Obama for years.

Here's the reference: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85S14820120701
 
Jhhnn said:
Repubs have been pioneering that particular approach to legislation & bipartisanship...
Click to expand...

The United States Republican Party is the second oldest currently existing political party in the United States after its great rival, the Democratic Party. It emerged in 1854 to combat the Kansas Nebraska Act which threatened to extend slavery into the territories, and to promote more vigorous modernization of the economy.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party

The first filibuster in U.S. Senate history began on March 5, 1841, over the issue of the firing of Senate printers, and lasted six days
Click to expand...
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1933802,00.html#ixzz20N59RCtx

Nope, you are VERY wrong. It is impossible for the Republicans to have pioneered the use of the filibuster in the US...the party did not exist when the filibuster was first used.

I think you meant the word "using" instead of "pioneering".
 
CharlesKozierok said:
Except there is no evidence that they are unhappy about the decision. The only people unhappy are the ones that have hated Obama for years.

Here's the reference: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85S14820120701
Click to expand...

67% against vs 38% for (thats after the increase of support) seems to indicate unhappiness as a group. Your contention that those against it hated Obama for years isn't based on anything I can see. If independents hated Obama all along then he would not be president. Has it occurred to you that people might not like Obamacare independent of Obama himself?
 
thraashman said:
Read the following in a CNN article about the House vote.

Prior to the final vote, the House rejected a Democratic motion that would have required any legislator supporting the repeal measure to give up government-provided health care.QUOTE]

Shocking that the GOP wouldn't be willing to lower themselves to the level of the people they claim they represent.
Click to expand...

Pure libertroll pandering. They're the ones that passed this botched abortion of a healthcare bill. And they exempted themselves from it, as usual. So pleas stop boring us with your self-righteous indignation.
Click to expand...
 
FerrelGeek said:
thraashman said:
Read the following in a CNN article about the House vote.
Click to expand...



Pure libertroll pandering. They're the ones that passed this botched abortion of a healthcare bill. And they exempted themselves from it, as usual. So pleas stop boring us with your self-righteous indignation.
Click to expand...
Odd that you call him a troll. The ACA specifically states that congress and congressional staff will be subject to this law.
 
Last edited:
cybrsage said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1933802,00.html#ixzz20N59RCtx

Nope, you are VERY wrong. It is impossible for the Republicans to have pioneered the use of the filibuster in the US...the party did not exist when the filibuster was first used.

I think you meant the word "using" instead of "pioneering".
Click to expand...

You are right in that Republicans (as if the term still means the same thing today) didn't pioneer the occasional use of the filibuster. But that wasn't his point. They pioneered the abuse of the filibuster, requiring 60 votes in the senate to get just about anything done. Occasional use is okay with me and America as a whole, but not when it is so frequently used to stall just about any business that the senate attends to. Pragmatism and compromise were thrown out the door of the senate when this started to happen.
 
MovingTarget said:
You are right in that Republicans (as if the term still means the same thing today) didn't pioneer the occasional use of the filibuster. But that wasn't his point. They pioneered the abuse of the filibuster, requiring 60 votes in the senate to get just about anything done. Occasional use is okay with me and America as a whole, but not when it is so frequently used to stall just about any business that the senate attends to. Pragmatism and compromise were thrown out the door of the senate when this started to happen.
Click to expand...

He knows that. Why bother trying to educate someone who is intentionally being dishonest?
 
FerrelGeek said:
thraashman said:
Read the following in a CNN article about the House vote.



Pure libertroll pandering. They're the ones that passed this botched abortion of a healthcare bill. And they exempted themselves from it, as usual. So pleas stop boring us with your self-righteous indignation.
Click to expand...

It makes complete sense to me. Why should they have government healthcare, but no one else?

The republicans haven't tried to reform healthcare in 100 YEARS. Not even ONCE. They stopped it recently in 94, and this time the democrats used the republicans' plan... and yet it is still evil. Yep, makes sense!

You are a botched abortion, not the healthcare bill.
Click to expand...
 
shadow9d9 said:
He knows that. Why bother trying to educate someone who is intentionally being dishonest?
Click to expand...

Because someone is wrong...on the internet....wharrrgarble!

duty_calls.png
 
MovingTarget said:
You are right in that Republicans (as if the term still means the same thing today) didn't pioneer the occasional use of the filibuster. But that wasn't his point. They pioneered the abuse of the filibuster, requiring 60 votes in the senate to get just about anything done. Occasional use is okay with me and America as a whole, but not when it is so frequently used to stall just about any business that the senate attends to. Pragmatism and compromise were thrown out the door of the senate when this started to happen.
Click to expand...


Don't know about that. In the 1969-1973 Congresses, the Dems had a majority in the Senate (only the Senate can filibuster nowadays). The use of the filibuster in 1968 was only 4 times, but by the end of 1973 it had risen to around 44 times - or 11 times higher. Then again in 1990 - 1994, the Dems had a majority in the Senate and the use of the filibuster went from about 38 to 80 times used...slightly over double. When the reps used it in the end of that chart, they used it more often, but the increase of use was not even double the previous use. More effective and more often, but not the pioneer of abuse - that medal falls firmly onto the dems.

The Reps have only recently done what the Dems have done many times in the past - only they are far more efficent and effective with it.

From wikipedia:

480px-Cloture_Voting%2C_United_States_Senate%2C_1947_to_2008.svg.png


Each of those big bumps, sans the last one, was due to the dems. The dems apparently are the pioneers.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
loki8481 said:
what bills did they fail to act on because they were too busy with this symbolic vote?
Click to expand...

Doesnt matter about other bills.

Its an incredible waste of time and money to continually go through the legislation process on a bill that stands no shot of being passed at this time.
 
cybrsage said:
Don't know about that. In the 1969-1973 Congresses, the Dems had a majority in the Senate (only the Senate can filibuster nowadays). The use of the filibuster in 1968 was only 4 times, but by the end of 1973 it had risen to around 44 times - or 11 times higher. Then again in 1990 - 1994, the Dems had a majority in the Senate and the use of the filibuster went from about 38 to 80 times used...slightly over double. When the reps used it in the end of that chart, they used it more often, but the increase of use was not even double the previous use. More effective and more often, but not the pioneer of abuse - that medal falls firmly onto the dems.

The Reps have only recently done what the Dems have done many times in the past - only they are far more efficent and effective with it.

From wikipedia:

480px-Cloture_Voting%2C_United_States_Senate%2C_1947_to_2008.svg.png


Each of those big bumps, sans the last one, was due to the dems. The dems apparently are the pioneers.
Click to expand...

That is soooo lame. It was Repubs doing the filibustering in both of the previous time periods you mention, and Repubs taking it to new heights of obstructionism today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top