"The Immigration Address....Let the GOP Madness Begin!"

[ricomsmith77]

Originally posted by ricomsmith77 at "The Immigration Address....Let the GOP Madness Begin!"
Tonight, President Obama will be addressing the nation on how he is going to move forward on Immigration Reform through Executive action.  He will lay out his plan on how he will go about fixing this problem legally, and what's at stake when he does it

Comments

[policraticus]

Bookmarked for when President Ted Cruz decides to "just stop enforcing the ACA," cause, you know, he doesn't like it.

[sandwichwarrior]

Not really.

He wanting to run the table, and doesn't make you good at pool.

[mahnmut]

A conservative asking the question whether Obama knows how to negotiate - that's rich. Especially given the obstructionist record on GOP's part for the last 6 years.

[sandwichwarrior]

You say "obstructionist" like it's bad thing rather than part of the opposition's job description.

Did you even read the article?

[mahnmut]

It may be part of the opposition's job description - but only in your place. Elsewhere in the democratic world, an opposition has a slightly different function.

But of course you're not supposed to know any different from what you've seen at your place.

[sandwichwarrior]

What, pray tell, have the progressive offered then?

[mahnmut]

Irrelevant. Have you been trying one of those distraction tricks of yours again?

[sandwichwarrior]

It is supremely relevant. If you offer nothing you should expect nothing in return.

[mahnmut]

That, coming from a Republican, is particularly rich. Especially in light of all the GOP's recent behavior.

Virtually all the arguments that you've been employing have become a caricature at this point.

[sandwichwarrior]

As opposed to the Dems and other bleeding-hearts who's arguments have been caricatures for years?

When was the last time that a Democrat opened a negotiation by offering the GOP something they actually wanted rather than demanding the whole pie and then settling for half?

Seriously, what is the GOP's motivation to cooperate in this case?

[mahnmut]

Yeah, well, the GOP has been demanding that the other side of the negotiation table keep moving to the right, and have been re-defining the "middle" ever since Obama declared that he'd be working for bipartisanship. And when things didn't go exactly their way, they shut down the government. Hell, they haven't even been hiding the fact that blocking Obama at every corner was their plan even from before he was sworn in. News-flash: that's NOT bipartisan effort. It's blackmail. It's a false pretense of readiness for negotiation. In other words, it's bullshit.

So you and your fave partisans have absolutely no right to preach about negotiation, because negotiation was never their intention in the first place. What's the GOP's motivation to cooperate? None whatsoever. And has been like that right from the get-go.

Your argument is hypocritical. You're using the tu quoque argument when it comes to bipartisanship and negotiation, where you should probably just sit back and shut up about it.

[sandwichwarrior]

Yes, and the Democrats keep demanding that the other side of the negotiation table keep moving to the Left, which it has. Just compare the typical "conservative" stance on things like the War on Drugs or Gay Rights to those 10 - 20 years ago. Aside from using the word a lot, what interest did the Democrats show in bipartisanship

[mahnmut]

the Democrats keep demanding that the other side of the negotiation table keep moving to the Left, which it has

Dude. What a pile of bollocks.

Gay rights isn't a Democrat cause. It's a civil rights cause. It's stupid and short-sighted to ascribe it to any one political ideology, just as race equality was. But then again, we've all grown accustomed to witnessing examples of short-sightedness on the conservative side, so that should hardly be a surprise to anybody.

There's a difference between a constructive opposition (one which has an alternative proposal to a particular policy), and an obstructionist opposition (whose sole task is to block anything the other side is trying to do). Granted, you guys in the US have forgotten how the former looks like, having become so used to the toxic nature of your political debate - so may you be forgiven for your complete lack of a sense for nuance.

I pity what American politics has become these days. And guys sharing your mentality are to blame for that predicament.

[sandwichwarrior]

I find it odd that you would focus on Cruz's name rather than the Idea that a conservative president could effectively put an end the ACA (or any other specific law for that matter) by fiat.

[mahnmut]

I'm merely responding to what I'm reading in the preceding comment. I find it odd that you have a problem with that.

[sandwichwarrior]

I know, that's the point.

The Idea of "President Cruz" struck you. The Idea that a conservative president could effectively put an end the ACA by fiat did not.