• 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!

Does the GOP want bipartisanship?

Does the GOP want bipartisanship (READ INTRO)?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • No

    Votes: 13 86.7%

  • Total voters
    15
MAIN QUESTION: Does the GOP want bipartisanship?
Does the GOP want bills put up for a vote thay they, as Republicans, can support and vote for?
Yes. No question.
 
Does the GOP want bills put up for a vote thay they, as Republicans, can support and vote for?
Yes. No question.

I think the point is that the GOP is unwilling to support a bill that does not include ALL of their suggestions.
 
I do not support what Obama is doing. Our government is no longer America. I just happen to agree with Rush on this subject. And it is not wanting to see Obama fall and get to snicker. It just what he is doing is wrong and we should not agree with it.

Meanwhile Obama has his aids distribute talking points to a broad base to establish that Limbaugh is the spearhead of the Republican power. I love the way people merge everything now days. You can't must engineer your comments with the grace of Obama to get out of anything safe.

LiveLeak.com - Limbaugh Defines Success and Failure for Loud Crowd at CPAC

LiveLeak.com - Media Elite Use Talking Points From ?Secret? Phone Conferences From Obama White House


You either work with us. Or you work against us. (sound familiar?)
 
Last edited:
Show this to be true.

They criticize nearly everything that democrats suggest and only support things they want.

The might not show it, but its there. The Republicans want to secretly turn the entire country into Republicans and drown out the voice of "what they think is wrong," a mentality which is itself very wrong.
 
They criticize nearly everything that democrats suggest and only support things they want.
Does this differ from the Democrats?

If someting is to be 'bi=partisan' it must be something that BOTH sides support. This means that the Dems, to be 'bi-partisan' have to give the GOP something theycan support. if the GOP is only presented with bills that contain nothing theycan support, then you cannot blame the GOP for not being bi-partisan.

The might not show it, but its there. The Republicans want to secretly turn the entire country into Republicans and drown out the voice of "what they think is wrong," a mentality which is itself very wrong.
Does this differ from the Democrats?
 
Does this differ from the Democrats?

If someting is to be 'bi=partisan' it must be something that BOTH sides support. This means that the Dems, to be 'bi-partisan' have to give the GOP something theycan support. if the GOP is only presented with bills that contain nothing theycan support, then you cannot blame the GOP for not being bi-partisan.


Does this differ from the Democrats?

I'm not blaming Reps for not being bipartisan, I'm blaming them for moving even father to the right at every turn and still putting up the flimsy facade that "they are bipartisan."

The stimulus bill passes recently was bipartisan, obviously, but too many Reps were trying to stall for time and pondering how they can further hinder progress. They attack Democrats, when it was actually the Dems who were pressing for progress and quick and action on these economic troubles, troubles which the Reps failed to prevent from surfacing during the 12 years they were in Congress.
 
I'm not blaming Reps for not being bipartisan, I'm blaming them for moving even father to the right at every turn and still putting up the flimsy facade that "they are bipartisan."
IIRC, the dems, especially The Obama, were the ones making hay about being bi-partisan -- a New Era in Washington, they said. All the GOP is asking is that they live up to that and create bills that they, as Republicans, can vote for.

The stimulus bill passes recently was bipartisan, obviously...
IIRC, there was virtyally no GOP support for this, and there were defections from the Dems. How was that 'bi-partisan'?

but too many Reps were trying to stall for time and pondering how they can further hinder progress.
If by 'progress' you mean 'getting it done' then you may be right. However, if by 'progress' you mean 'positive movement', then you're not.
 
IIRC, the dems, especially The Obama, were the ones making hay about being bi-partisan -- a New Era in Washington, they said. All the GOP is asking is that they live up to that and create bills that they, as Republicans, can vote for.

True, I guess, but more Reps could have supported the bill. But for some reason, maybe to get back at Dems for being the filibustering ones during the Bush era, the Reps stalled for time and hindered progress.

IIRC, there was virtyally no GOP support for this, and there were defections from the Dems. How was that 'bi-partisan'?

Bipartisanship is, as Merriam-Webster Dictionary says: "of, relating to, or involving members of two parties."

Members from both parties supported it, A majority of Dems in house and senate, and some Reps in the senate. If these few Reps did not support it, then I agree that it would not be bipartisan.


If by 'progress' you mean 'getting it done' then you may be right. However, if by 'progress' you mean 'positive movement', then you're not.

No I mean getting it done and a positive movement, and I'm right about that.
 
Last edited:
True, I guess, but more Reps could have supported the bill.
If there's nothing in it that a Republican would support, why wou;d they?

But for some reason, maybe to get back at Dems for being the filibustering ones during the Bush era, the Reps stalled for time and hindered progress.
Why would not NOT fillibuster a bill that you dont want to pass?

Bipartisanship is, as Merriam-Webster Dictionary says: "of, relating to, or involving members of two parties."
Yes. And it is measured by the two-party support a bill has when voted on.
If a bill is passed along party lines, its not bi-partisan, as the majority party did not craft the bill in such a way to gain support from the minority party.

Members from both parties supported it, A majority of Dems in house and senate, and some Reps in the senate. If these few Reps did not support it, then I agree that it would not be bipartisan.
"Soime" needs to exceed 3 in order to make any real claim of bipartisanship.

No I mean getting it done and a positive movement, and I'm right about that.
"Positive movement" is subjective. In your OPINION the movement is towards something "positive".
 
If there's nothing in it that a Republican would support, why wou;d they?

Spite? :shrug:

Why would not NOT fillibuster a bill that you dont want to pass?

What?

Yes. And it is measured by the two-party support a bill has when voted on.
If a bill is passed along party lines, its not bi-partisan, as the majority party did not craft the bill in such a way to gain support from the minority party.

I don't understand your response here. It wasn't bipartisan because it it wasn't crafted for the minority, yet members of the minority supported it? Even though it was still bipartisan.


"Soime" needs to exceed 3 in order to make any real claim of bipartisanship.

Is that a rule? I'm not mocking you, seriously, I'm just curious, I've never heard of that.


"Positive movement" is subjective. In your OPINION the movement is towards something "positive".

This is true.
 
Spite? :shrug:
Let me ask this differently:
You REALLY expect the GOP to support abill that contains nothing the GOP stands for? Why would they do that?

The question is pretty simple:
Why would the GOP NOT fillibuster a bill thay they believe will be bad for the country?

I don't understand your response here. It wasn't bipartisan because it it wasn't crafted for the minority, yet members of the minority supported it? Even though it was still bipartisan.
It wasnt bipartisan because it didnt gain support of both parties, as reflected in the vote tally. A few defectors does not a bi-partisan bill make.
 
The GOP will continue to obstruct legislation, not because it doesn't reflect Republican ideals, but simply because it is sponsored by Democrats. Republicans will not allow Americans to perceive that Democrats have good ideas. Period.
 
The Dems will continue to obstruct legislation, not because it doesn't reflect Democrat ideals, but simply because it is sponsored by Republicans. Democrats will not allow Americans to perceive that Republicans have good ideas. Period.
 
Let me ask this differently:
You REALLY expect the GOP to support a bill that contains nothing the GOP stands for?

No, they have some reason to stall. I don't know what it is. No one knows. :(


Why would they do that?

They would do that because its right, but they didn't do it.


The question is pretty simple:
Why would the GOP NOT fillibuster a bill thay they believe will be bad for the country?

Again, its a mystery. :(


It wasnt bipartisan because it didnt gain support of both parties, as reflected in the vote tally. A few defectors does not a bi-partisan bill make.

That's what a bunch of definitions, including the one I showed you, say.
Bipartisanship is the support of members of the two parties, not every single member.

In the vote tally, it was like all the Dems and 3 Reps for the bill, which means the bill had support from both parties.

But you assert that "a few defectors does not a bi-partisan bill make." Then this brings me back to the question I asked before, which you did not answer. Is there a rule of some kind that says "this certain number of supporters constitutes bipartisanship?" How many supports from both parties would there need to be to make it bipartisan?
 
Democrats will not allow Americans to perceive that Republicans have good ideas. Period.

Because they don't have good ideas anyway. ;)
 
The Dems will continue to obstruct legislation, not because it doesn't reflect Democrat ideals, but simply because it is sponsored by Republicans. Democrats will not allow Americans to perceive that Republicans have good ideas. Period.

The only Republicans "good ideas" are like your post....taking a Democratic idea and putting their name on it. Thanks for the example.:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom