• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So Who Won?

Who Won on the Budget Compromise?


  • Total voters
    75
LOL....there were no "backroom deals". It passed the same way all legislation passes.

Our past as a country is full of backroom deals. It is true the insurance industry was in the room. But this is quite typical. I wish it was more atypical, but there was little different here.
 
LOL....there were no "backroom deals". It passed the same way all legislation passes.

Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback.......

Yeah, just like always...............didn't have to bribe a single Democrat. :lol:
 
Obama and Crats clearly won this epic and colossal battle that will be immortalized in the collective progressives hearts for eternity, because progressives are never wrong and never make mistakes and if they do its because they were tricked or set up, inheriting mean and evil spirited governments from conservatives.
 
You may have missed this, but that has always been the complaint about republicans. However, voting has nothing to do with what I said.
If Republicans voted in lockstep we would not have suffered from the kind of defeat one experiences when being stabbed in the back by one's supposed allies. McCain had his testicles removed when the North Vietnamese kept him. He has been a mean, miserable, spiteful asshole ever since. He typifies the establishment Republicans.
 
Lately, it seems to me that republicans are conceding points to the democrats more than anything. Perhaps that's just the way it shows up in news stories, but...

Still seems that way.


The problem is that we have somehow reached a point wherein the two sides have almost exactly OPPOSITE positions...so it's far less likely that a compromise will end up making BOTH unhappy (the mark of a true compromise, and why politicians don't like doing such - it makes all the voters unhappy), because even the slightest shift towards the middle by one side means they "gave in" and "got beaten".

Sigh.
 
If Republicans voted in lockstep we would not have suffered from the kind of defeat one experiences when being stabbed in the back by one's supposed allies. McCain had his testicles removed when the North Vietnamese kept him. He has been a mean, miserable, spiteful asshole ever since. He typifies the establishment Republicans.

Nonsense. Lock step isn't about being elected. It's about votes. And repeatedly both sides vote along partisan lines. To not see that says something.
 
Oh great we get to do this again soon.

Yep,you think the puppies and teabaggers, will double down and cost the country $ 48, billion the next sutdown ?
 
Nonsense. Lock step isn't about being elected. It's about votes. And repeatedly both sides vote along partisan lines. To not see that says something.
Sigh. Fortunately I do not have to correct your many errors.
 
The other persons post actually addressed the subject of the thread...which was who won in terms of their legislative goals. The post in question talked about the funding levels in the bill, which is legislative in nature. Your post rambled on about making things popular (Polls, not legislative results). I'm sorry you're suffering from some sort of persecution complex in this thread, but your inability to actually address the question within the OP and need to deflect into other opinions is not a testiment to my partisnaship but perhaps your own.

Reading comprehension is not tied to political philosophy. Neither is the ability not to ignorantly stereotype. It's not "painful" at all to me; I've suggested for some time on this forum that the Republicans were politicall wrong in their action and are likely to come out as the bigger of the two losers in this. The difference is I recognize there are a multitude of other threads discussing that and I instead attempted to focus on what was actually asked in the OP.

Good for you. God knows, nobody should ever stray from the simple question asked in the poll. OK, I'll play the game. The Democrats won. They won because the Republicans lost.

You can go back to your role of making sure nobody strays from the path you have defined. I can't help but notice that lots of other folks did exactly the same thing, but you, with your infinite wisdom, decided to single me out. I feel honored.
 
LOL....there were no "backroom deals". It passed the same way all legislation passes.

Sshhhh! It's standard right wing delusion that anything that happens is because of some nefarious trick played by those liberal rascals! Living in the real world is not their forte.
 
If anyone is still confused about 'Who Won", I think the latest ABC/WaPo poll is pretty clear-\

Poll Results Just Keep Getting Worse and Worse for Republicans | Mother Jones

blog_abc_poll_shutdown_2013_10_21.jpg
 
Again, poll results regarding what people think about things does not...in any way shape or form...answer the question of "who won" as it relates to the terms of that question within this thread.


uhhh. How to you figure?

If you have some sort of 'win' in terms of concessions, (which is pretty clear the GOP did not) it kinda gets trumped by getting your ass beat in the next election and possibly losing the House, dontcha think?

Now we dont know if that will happen, but the chances of it happening are exponentially better than at the beginning of the month. I call that an indication of a potentialy significant loss.
 
LOL....there were no "backroom deals". It passed the same way all legislation passes.

Wait what? Just wanting to find out if you're being literal here to try and work a loophole or if you actually believe this.

You believe that all legislation...or even most legislation...have a substantial amendment passed through a reconcilliation process and signed 7 days after the original bill is passed, the creation of which was promised by the Speaker at the time to a multitude of Democratic Congressman as a way of winning their votes to a bill that by itself they opposed? (NYT)

It was "passed the same way all legislation passes", IE voted on by one house then voted on by another. But its passage was due to a "backroom deal" for an immediete amendment to be done to a number of portions of the senates bill in exchange for their support on the votes.

It's also accurate to say that it's unusual and atypical, but fully within the rules of congress, for a bill to be passed by the senate, approved by the House, and then amended 7 days later via the reconcilliation process. The TYPICAL manner in which the Houses disagreements on a bill sent from the Senate is address is through passing their own bill and having it go to a conference comittee and then back to both houses.

Then again, there's nothing inherently wrong with "unusual" or "atypical"...but it's a wonderful example showing that both sides wantonly utilize atypical congressional loopholes, procedures, and actions to achieve their goals.

But yes...it was absolutely through "backroom deals" of sorts that the votes were able to be gained in the House when they were previously opposed, which then allowed for it to be passed in the normal process and then unusually amended in an atypical manner.
 
uhhh. How to you figure?

By reading the OP:

So who won? Not in terms of the effects of the bill, but which side got more of what they wanted, got the better deal from the compromise?

Their post was focused on and asking who got the better deal legislatively...not in terms of the effects the bill will have on the electorate and others. What I "think" regarding the impact of this on the next election is irrelevant to the question of "Who Won" as it relates to this thread (on the record, I'm of a similar mind as Nate Silver. Little real impact, likely resulting in a few house seats loss but very little chance of this itself costing the Republicans the House).

As it relates to the OP, my stance still is that by and large the Democrats clearly came out the winner in regards to the legislative detalis of the compromise...they staved off all attempts to derail Obamacare, got the debt ceiling extended, and pushed the next debate to a point where Obamacare will have began to already substantially intigrate into the system making it far more difficult for Republicans to leverage the next date as a means of attacking it again.
 
By reading the OP:



Their post was focused on and asking who got the better deal legislatively...not in terms of the effects the bill will have on the electorate and others. What I "think" regarding the impact of this on the next election is irrelevant to the question of "Who Won" as it relates to this thread (on the record, I'm of a similar mind as Nate Silver. Little real impact, likely resulting in a few house seats loss but very little chance of this itself costing the Republicans the House). .

I agree with your take on it, but I think a poll that I referenced above makes me think that Silver may end up underestimating the impact. This kind of wound might be a lot deeper in peoples memories just a short year away. Then again, maybe not.

But if it DOES play a major role and the House does swing Dem (I think the Senate was at risk for going GOP.. I think thats less likely now), it will be unquestionable that the Democrats get the better deal legislatively long term, in addition the short term 'win' which really was just extending the status quo.
 
What's probabaly going to happen is that they are going to have to delay the individual mandate, which was a big negotiating point for the GOP. And the Dems are going to get a whole lot of cheshire cat grinning from Republicans.
 
Again, poll results regarding what people think about things does not...in any way shape or form...answer the question of "who won" as it relates to the terms of that question within this thread.

Keep telling yourself that. Eventually even you might believe it.
 
What's probabaly going to happen is that they are going to have to delay the individual mandate, which was a big negotiating point for the GOP. And the Dems are going to get a whole lot of cheshire cat grinning from Republicans.

Yeah, if I was a Republican - which thank God I'm not - I'd be turning cartwheels about how well this turned out for me. :lamo
 
What's probabaly going to happen is that they are going to have to delay the individual mandate, which was a big negotiating point for the GOP. And the Dems are going to get a whole lot of cheshire cat grinning from Republicans.

Except for the fact if they need to delay the mandate, it will not be for the reason Republicans wanted it delayed.... Obama can do it all on his own - without Congress. And if Obama does it, you can expect a lot of pissed Republicans, because... well..... Obama did it.
 
By reading the OP:



Their post was focused on and asking who got the better deal legislatively...not in terms of the effects the bill will have on the electorate and others. What I "think" regarding the impact of this on the next election is irrelevant to the question of "Who Won" as it relates to this thread (on the record, I'm of a similar mind as Nate Silver. Little real impact, likely resulting in a few house seats loss but very little chance of this itself costing the Republicans the House).

As it relates to the OP, my stance still is that by and large the Democrats clearly came out the winner in regards to the legislative detalis of the compromise...they staved off all attempts to derail Obamacare, got the debt ceiling extended, and pushed the next debate to a point where Obamacare will have began to already substantially intigrate into the system making it far more difficult for Republicans to leverage the next date as a means of attacking it again.

I do not think the integration will be the issue, though it will have an effect. I think getting closer to elections will, as the corollary to what Nate Silver said. Doing something unpopular approaching pimary time is not going to be something alot want to do.
 
So, with what we know now, did republicans or democrats get a better deal on the compromise?

Nothing was lost and nothing was gained. They got about the same but democrats did win.Because the democrats did not budge even at the threat of a defaulting and the Republicans pussed out(mostly it was the RINO caucus that ******d out). Therefore republicans will not be able to use the threat of a government shut down again to undermine Obama-care or any other sacred cow of the democrats. If democrats are smart they should be wary of any bills that will fund certain sections of the government in case there is another shutdown.
 
Back
Top Bottom