[ SECRET POST #2476 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2476 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.





















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 048 secrets from Secret Submission Post #354.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

The argument from 'legality' is frequently made pretty poorly. You're definitely right, it would be ludicrous to say that Obamacare should be the law just because it is a law. I think what people mean has less to do with the fact that it's a law; what they really want to talk about is the fact that it is a democratically enacted law. What they're saying is that it is a law that was passed, after a lengthy process of deliberation, by the congress. It's a law that was declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. The president who advocated the law was re-elected by a very clear margin. People have tried, over and over, almost to the point of absurdity, to repeal it, and they have failed every time, because they don't have enough votes. It is a valid law, it is one that has been approved by every process of our democracy. And now a minority of a minority is trying to repeal it, not by any regular legislative process, but by attempting to barter the economic security of the country for its repeal. It's not the fact that it's a valid law; it's that it is incredibly undemocratic for them to attempt to threaten to take away a law that is valid in every structure we have in our government, despite completely lacking in a majority or in a number of voters to do that.

The analogy to the second amendment, or the principle of border security, doesn't quite fit. No one denies that the second amendment is the law of the land; the arguments are over the correct interpretation of the second amendment, and over exactly what kind of laws we should put into place to regulate and maintain those rights. It's certainly true that in some cases, it is right, even necessary, for people to refuse to comply with, and to go to any means to repeal, an unjust law. But I think, at some point, you have to think about the proportion between the means and the end. And the idea that the evil that would be done by Obamacare is sufficient to justify shutting down the government and risking a credit default that would have real, serious economic repercussions is not one that makes sense to me. That's really the question here - how do we balance all those things out? Of course it's the right of the Republicans in Congress to vote as they want, but I don't think they're right, and it's not a course of action that really makes sense to me.

Re: Obamacare

[kelincihutan]

You sort of just illustrated my point. You brought up principled reasons to debate with both the interpretation and the reach of both the Second Amendment and Obamacare. There should be reasons to support those laws or to oppose them. Supporting a law simply because it is one is...pointless in a best case scenario. I disagree that it wouldn't be valid to repeal a law that was established properly, provided such a repeal also followed the rules. As you say, Republicans are well within their rights to use political strategy in an attempt to thwart a law they oppose. If they start disregarding the system/actively breaking the law, that would be a different story. Nor, for that matter are Republicans really trying to barter anything. They've been passing funding agreement after funding agreement from the GOP-controlled House to get various parts of the government out of the discussion (most of which, I might point out, have been supported by House Dems like Nancy Pelosi, and at least one of which included SNAP, so it's not like the GOP is "holding food stamps hostage" or anything) only to have all of them stymied by the Democrat-controlled Senate because Reid/Obama are refusing to negotiate on Obamacare unless everything else is tied to it as well. The strategy is pretty crappy on both sides right now.

As to the shutdown, nobody--including Republicans--actually wanted one. But, as you can observe throughout the thread, the two parties aren't really talking to one another very well. The fact that it was Obamacare that brought the fight to a head isn't surprising either, given that it's such a polarizing legislation. Honestly, though, I had thought there would be a deal yesterday. I'm kind of surprised there wasn't. I thought they'd gotten something hammered out, but...*sigh*

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I think that's true, but like I say, it's not just a question of supporting it or opposing it; it's also about how you go about doing that. I agree that you shouldn't support a law just because it's a law. But doing all this stuff to get rid of it, I don't know if that's okay either. You said that neither side wanted a shutdown; I guess it's a semantic debate, on some level. I suppose you could say that the Republicans wanted a shutdown more than they wanted to fund the government with Obamacare, and the Democrats wanted a shutdown more than they wanted to fund the government without Obamacare.

And I hope I'm not harping on a point here, but I think that's the where the thing about Obamacare being democratically enacted comes up again, and the reason people talk about legality. Because at least the thing that the Democrats are trying to keep is something that was voted in democratically and all that; and the Republicans are trying to use the shutdown and the threat of a default to get rid of it, when they don't have the votes to repeal it. And it comes down to the same question - how do you balance these things? Is it appropriate for them to ask this way, to try to get rid of a law like this? Is this a suitable, acceptable political tactic to get rid of something like Obamacare? And I don't think that it is - even if you oppose the law.

I also think there are parts of both parties that, in a way, welcomed the shutdown - I think there are parts of the left that welcomed it as an opportunity for a real showdown with the Republicans, and there are parts of the Republican party that welcomed it as an opportunity to cut some more money out of the budget. At the end of the day, that really goes to the root cause of all of this whole thing - our political system is pretty dysfunctional. It's pretty broken. For a lot of reasons.

Re: Obamacare

[kelincihutan]

You're not harping on a point, or at least, no more than is warranted, because I think you're right that this is a central question of the moment. But I would say that it is awfully hard to say that any political strategy, provided it follows procedure and is not illegal, is not a legitimate one. At least for legislators, anyway. Even if the strategy being employed is unconventional/downright weird. Any rules otherwise would be binding on both parties, and sooner or later, something is going to come along that Democrats will be certain would be just as harmful to the country as Republicans are about Obamacare. They should have just as much leeway to fight, as creatively and stubbornly as they can, for what they believe is right.

I agree that, on both parties, not wanting to shutdown was obviously a distinct position from not being willing to shutdown. And that things are pretty broken. I honestly don't know where we go from here, and I get a little more worried about it every day.

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that all political strategies are at least potentially valid - that you can't make any binding rules in advance, that everything is a question of circumstance and context, of the consideration of means and ends. But saying that doesn't mean that any political strategy is actually justified in a given context. You couldn't make a rule against something like what the Republicans are doing; there's certainly times when it's appropriate. But the question has to be whether this is that time. If there are no hard-and-fast rules in advance, then we have to use our reason and our judgment to determine it.

And to me, the answer to that specific question - are the Republicans justified in using this strategy to oppose this law - has to be no. Because the strategy that they're using is an incredibly risky and harmful one. That's really what I object to, if I'm honest - the government shutdown is harmful, but toying with the possibility of a credit default is really dangerous. And to me, Obamacare simply is not harmful enough, or immoral enough, to require such a dangerous, hardcore response (especially since, again, it is legal, and it has been passed through the whole framework of democratic government). It is just out of proportion. I can understand people opposing it; I can't see how anyone would think it's awful enough to oppose in this way. It seems to me a mistake in judgment. And the same would go for the Democrats - it's always a question of judgment, of whether what the Democrats would be objecting to would be serious enough to be worth risking something like this.

Sometimes, in a democratic republican system, you lose because the other side has the majority of the votes. And that's the way the system works. Sometimes, the thing in question is so important that one feels no choice but to go against the laws - but a lot of the time, you just kind of have to accept that you lost that one. And it all comes down to our judgment and our reason and our principles when it comes to determining which is which.

Re: the problems in our system - I think a lot of it comes down to the influence of money, but that's a whole other topic and I've already written a billion words here. Sorry about that, by the way. I keep thinking "Oh, I just have one point to make" and then all of a sudden, there's multiple paragraphs up there...

Re: Obamacare

[kelincihutan]

Okay, I see where you're coming from now. I think that, in the judgement of at least some of the Republicans, Obamacare really is going to be that bad for the country. So, yes, this strategy is pretty crazy, but they genuinely believe that the risk merits heroic measures. I don't give all of them that much credit, I'm perfectly happy to say. John McCain, for example, has all the genuine conviction of a used car salesman and none of the charm. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is taking a bath in PR, but is sticking to his guns. That takes conviction and inclines me to think he really is convinced Obamacare is that bad.

But I don't think that the US will default on anything. Like I said, I think they almost had a debt deal yesterday. I strongly doubt the shutdown/debt ceiling debate will survive this next week. A large part of the Republican strategy was to get Democrats on record as voting for such-and-such or against so-and-so going into the 2014 elections. Having gotten those votes on the record, and having made a pretty strong effort to get at least some concessions on Obamacare (they may actually get the medical device tax removed, but that's still in the works), I think they can walk away pretty happy for the time being. It's part of Obama/Reid's strategy, too. If the Democrats wait out the shutdown until the very last minute before a potential default, they can demand the GOP give up virtually anything with the threat that Republicans will get blamed for a default so they'd better give over. In both cases, both groups have strong motivation not to default outside of the whole it-would-be-bad-for-everyone's-economy thing. So, for all the rhetoric flying around about it, I would be flabbergasted if it actually happened.

As to the long comments, it's fine. You seem like a very thoughtful person, and we're actually talking about politics on the internet and not having a fight, so I totally appreciate the conversation.

NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

Just wanted to butt in long enough to note that, while I disagree with McCain on a number of important points and I'm glad he wasn't elected President, lately he seems to be the only Republican (at least among the outspoken leaders in the party) with any integrity at all and the only one I can somewhat respect. He's been denouncing the House Republicans' strategy and acknowledging Obamacare as the democratically-enacted law of the land, calling for the House to accept it and move on, despite the fact that he himself strenuously opposed it. Granted, this may say less about McCain himself than the sorry state of his party in general.

(Unrelated to the current topic, I also recall that during his Presidential campaign, he rebuked his own supporters in the audience at one of the debates for shouting inflammatory things about Obama, saying that he was a good man and they had nothing to fear if he was elected President. Policy aside, I wish more of his colleagues would show a little more of that kind of class.)