U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Sunseeker]

and after deductions it comes up to a giant whopping zero..

Depends on the decuctions. I didn't qualify for any of them last year.

remember! you can claim EIC on up to 49k/yr!!! which means you get back more than you pay in!!the mandate..

Since when? My 2011 Federal Tax form says it caps at 14k for the individual. What tax sheets are you looking at? Also: claiming it doesn't mean I qualify for it.

I think you guys are missing the part where basically whatever I put on my taxes is a claim that I should qualify for it, but not a guarantee that I(or anyone else) will.

---------- Post added 2012-06-28 at 01:52 PM ----------

When did walking out on their jobs become the Democratic go-to tactic? It's disgusting.

Not that this is new right or particularly limited to the Democrats.

[KingHorse]

The thing is this was tried out by the repubs already, now the dems years and years later got it going... why be mad form a political side since both parties at a point where going for it?

Because it's shit. It's a Frankenstein "Whatever we can get" bill, when what we need is single payer, tax us because you have to, give us free healthcare forever bill.

[Catta]

If filibuster is being used it means they're employing tools of their profession. Walking out is just walking out.

Does that mean you think its okay that Obama uses executive privilege on the F&F documents then?

[Grizzly Willy]

If filibuster is being used it means they're employing tools of their profession. Walking out is just walking out.

I would like to add that the notion of the filibuster is a complete fucking travesty to the political system.

[Dacien]

Does that mean you think its okay that Obama uses executive privilege on the F&F documents then?

Oh I can pile on him for being a political scoundrel like the rest of them, but no, it's a legit presidential power.

[bergmann620]

Oh I can pile on him for being a political scoundrel like the rest of them, but no, it's a legit presidential power.

It is, but Holder isn't the executive, and Obama said he had no knowledge of the goings on, so there is no reason to use EP.

[Wells]

It is, but Holder isn't the executive, and Obama said he had no knowledge of the goings on, so there is no reason to use EP.

The power can and does cover the entire branch.

[bergmann620]

I would like to add that the notion of the filibuster is a complete fucking travesty to the political system.

It's a part of the system. Do you think the system is a travesty, or do you just not like it because it's not going your way? If there is actually important legislation to be passed, it will make it past the filibuster.

[Grizzly Willy]

It's a part of the system. Do you think the system is a travesty, or do you just not like it because it's not going your way? If there is actually important legislation to be passed, it will make it past the filibuster.

I don't care who does it. It's the equivalent of throwing a fit and refusing to stop until you get your way.

And, I don't know about you, but I can hate part of a system without hating the entire system. I don't hate my Xbox 360 just because I hate that the disc tray jams.

[Sunseeker]

I don't particularly like it, because it's been perverted from its intended use. I don't care who uses it, if you're doing it just to stall a vote, and not to actually attempt to debate a bill, you're doing it wrong.

True, but they can close a bill to debate, even without any debate on it at all.

[Tastyfish]

Because it's shit. It's a Frankenstein "Whatever we can get" bill, when what we need is single payer, tax us because you have to, give us free healthcare forever bill.

That is what you get when both sides refuse to work towards the betterment of all people.

It's like we can almost all agree it's shitty to make women pay more for insurance then men. OK now with this they aren't going to. Now what do we do if Romney gets in office and just negates what happend? Go back to that?

I can't really say I like the idea of someone not getting cancer treatment because they can't afford it either.

[bergmann620]

It's like we can almost all agree it's shitty to make women pay more for insurance then men. OK now with this they aren't going to. Now what do we do if Romney gets in office and just negates what happend? Go back to that?

Why? No one has a problem with men paying more for life insurance or car insurance. It sucks that women cost more to insure, but sometimes reality sucks.

[Callace]

Honestly, I don't see what "gender liability" has to do with refusing someone cancer treatment...

[Lenonis]

Oh for christ sakes, the Dems walked out in protest. They didn't walk out and take a month of vacation before returning. It was a far stronger statement to their objection of the contempt vote than just voting no. They didn't abandon their duties as everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) knows this contempt vote won't go anywhere meaningful. The Republican vote is just as much of a waste of time as the Dems walking out. It's pure political showmanship all around.

Save the fake outrage for something that matters.

[vetinari]

Oh for christ sakes, the Dems walked out in protest. They didn't walk out and take a month of vacation before returning. It was a far stronger statement to their objection of the contempt vote than just voting no. They didn't abandon their duties as everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) knows this contempt vote won't go anywhere meaningful. The Republican vote is just as much of a waste of time as the Dems walking out. It's pure political showmanship all around.

Save the fake outrage for something that matters.

But when something matters, you need real outrage. So saving fake outrage is rather pointless.

[bergmann620]

The Republican vote is just as much of a waste of time as the Dems walking out. It's pure political showmanship all around.

It's only a waste of time because Obama has essentially placed Holder above the law. Are you comfortable with that?

[Spectral]

Save the fake outrage for something that matters.

If Republicans had done that, there wouldn't have been anything said about F&F in the first place. This is literally the first time I've ever seen Republicans en masse agree with the idea that proliferation of guns results in violence.

---------- Post added 2012-06-29 at 10:13 AM ----------

When did walking out on their jobs become the Democratic go-to tactic? It's disgusting.

Is there some part of their duties that was not fulfilled? As near as I can tell, they were under no legal obligation to vote.

[Lenonis]

It's only a waste of time because Obama has essentially placed Holder above the law. Are you comfortable with that?

Yes, because Obama is the only president ever to assert executive privilege (I'm having spelling issues with that word...spellcheck don't fail me now!) right?

And your point is actually irrelevant. Regardless of what Obama did, the republicans knew that voting to hold Holder in contempt would not go anywhere. They did it to make a point publicly. Just like the Dems did by walking out. They are both pointless waste of time political showmanship moves. To get outraged over one and not the other is hypocritical.

---------- Post added 2012-06-29 at 09:16 AM ----------

But when something matters, you need real outrage. So saving fake outrage is rather pointless.

touche.

[bergmann620]

Yes, because Obama is the only president ever to assert executive privilege (I'm having spelling issues with that word...spellcheck don't fail me now!) right?

So we're back to "Some other guy did something just as bad, so this guy shouldn't be held accountable!"? Why doesn't that work for any of us, and why are you fine with it being OK at the top?

And your point is actually irrelevant. Regardless of what Obama did, the republicans knew that voting to hold Holder in contempt would not go anywhere. They did it to make a point publicly. Just like the Dems did by walking out. They are both pointless waste of time political showmanship moves. To get outraged over one and not the other is hypocritical.

First off, the contempt vote was quite a bit more bipartisan than, say, the ACA. Second, while they must have known what was likely to happen, but I'm guessing that the Republican leadership wanted something official, preserved in the congressional record, to indicate that even if a sidestep was sure to happen, they at least did their job. By contrast, the Democratic walk-out will only exist on the press record.

I could personally care less whether the Democrats walk out or not. I didn't vote for them, and I likely won't be voting for any of the walkers, so whether they did or didn't do their job is of no concern. Their actions didn't harm or obstruct a vote of duly elected representatives, so it has basically nothing in common with the issues in Wisconsin, to which I responded with quite authentic outrage.

[Lenonis]

So we're back to "Some other guy did something just as bad, so this guy shouldn't be held accountable!"? Why doesn't that work for any of us, and why are you fine with it being OK at the top?

I was just pointed out more hypocrisy. I do agree that just because it was done in the past doesn't mean it should be ok now. That being said, I don't even pretend to know enough about what the documents say and why the decision was made. It could very well be for valid reasons...we probably won't know for some time.

First off, the contempt vote was quite a bit more bipartisan than, say, the ACA. Second, while they must have known what was likely to happen, but I'm guessing that the Republican leadership wanted something official, preserved in the congressional record, to indicate that even if a sidestep was sure to happen, they at least did their job. By contrast, the Democratic walk-out will only exist on the press record.

I'm pretty sure them voting "absent" is preserved in the congressional record, so I believe your statement is false. (if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me). You also didn't really address my point -- supporting one act that is a political statement but decrying another act that is a political statement is just dishonest -- and it's just because of the same partisan politics.

EDIT -- and don't even try to pretend that this contempt vote isn't Republican driven.

EDIT2 -- I'm just basically really tired of one side pointing fingers at the other pretending they are somehow above whatever the other side is doing. If this situation were reversed the GOP would do exactly the same thing. Ditto for the filibuster -- if the balance of power flipped, the Dems would filibuster everything. It's just stupid -- just admit your biases and be honest that you are just blaming the other side because you want your side to win...it has nothing to do with being honest.