Obama's Plan to Regulate the Internet is 332 Pages. The Public Can't Read It!

[NasstyNate]

I see this boilerplate quote so often, would you have the actual text so I can make sure it's not wildly taken out of context in a political spectrum shattered by hatred and partisanship?

I was hoping that people would bite so you can rope a dope them to expose their ignorance. Alas.

But I'll answer. The House passed its version of the ACA in late March. The entire text was available to the public. At the time, the political environment was abuzz with talk of the ACA providing death panels, abortions, healthcare to illegal immigrants, and all sorts of other made up nonsense. So, with the House having already passed its version, the country waited on the Senate to pass its version. In the time between, Nancy Pelosi stated about that not-yet-passed Senate bill,

"You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."​

Read in context, she was saying that many people were predicting doom and gloom, but there wasn't even a bill passed yet on which to base those predictions. Therefore, the Senate should pass its bill and then reconcile with the House version. Then people could see what is in the final version in order to discuss it.

It didn't take long for certain media outlets lacking any dedication to truth or integrity to snip the beginning of the statement in order to make it seem like she was saying something completely different. And, those that continue to spout that canard merely reveal themselves to be a product of those media outlets.

 

[NasstyNate]

As I said, I believe "what happened" was that he wanted to avoid something this politically divisive until the point where the politics no longer mattered (for him, anyway). Feel free to reject that argument, but it is a logical explanation for why he might have wanted to wait.

The point is he didn't wait. He tried his best to influence the FCC from the beginning of his first term and was explicitly rejected by his own appointee. Your explanation is not logical at all.

The Affordable Care Act, stimulus, and car company bailout all required Congressional action, and were not things he could have done at any time via executive action. So, he acted on those things when he had the required Congressional majority, because he had no guarantee as to how long he would have it.

An FCC decision is not something that can be done at any time via executive action.

He didn't choose the timing on gay marriage -- the Supreme Court did when it threw out the Defense of Marriage Act.

Wrong. The president came out for gay marriage in May of 2012. The DOMA decision was June 26, 2013.

I would add that there is absolutely nothing preventing Obama from asking a potential FCC nominee for his views on Net Neutrality, and had he wanted to implement it earlier in his Presidency, he could have nominated someone who promised to do just that.

He did in 2009.

 

[spydy13]

It's good to be king...

It's good to be democratically elected by wide margins twice.

 

[gourimoko]

You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word "fact".

??

Unless you are a mind-reader, this is not something you can "know. You can apply deductive reasoning, make inferences, whatever, to try to discern his actual motive (which may be quite different than his stated motive), but ultimately, it is not a provable/knowable fact. But, your belief that you can somehow "know" that is...illuminating.

How can you waste time writing such garbage?

You could make this same nonsensical argument about his religion.

To clarify, I stated that "I know for a fact," meaning, I know from first hand experience and trusted second hand conversations as an employee on his political campaign staff as well as a staffer for the DSCC.

Any moderately astute political observer knew that Republicans were not going to give him what he wanted on either immigration or Net Neutrality.

Has nothing to do with my point above. I'm referencing his first 4-5 years in office.

He certainly knew that no later than the beginning of 2014.

"Unless you are a mind-reader, this is not something you can know."

And he also know in 2012 that he wasn't going to get what he wanted. So why didn't he issue his order after/before the 2012 election, or during 2014 prior to the election? Politics, in my opinion at least.

You have no idea. Like, you literally are talking straight out of your ass.

Barack Obama came into office as someone who simply hadn't been on Capital Hill long enough. He had no understanding, or appreciation for the level of pushback he was going to get as President. He genuinely thought that he could make inroads with Republicans.

You don't have to be a staffer to know this. You can read his books, or read the writings of those people who were around him.

Obama was willing to work with the Republicans on any and all issues, including immigration, going back to 2010. The problem is, and has been for the past 5 years, the fractured state of the GOP.

As to the GOP unwillingness to "compromise"....

If you ask me to give you one hundred dollars, and I say no because I don't want to give you any money, it is not a reasonable "compromise" for you to then say "how about $50", and then bitch because I refuse. That's essentially what happened.

Again, another overly simplified and thus inaccurate and incorrect analogy.

On most of those issues, the President and the GOP had completely different ideas on which direction the country should take. As a simplification, he wanted to go "left", and the GOP (rightly or wrongly)wanted to go "right". Going only halfway left is not a compromise.

And fuck the center too?

Second, Congress can only write the legislation that is part of a deal/compromise. It must rely on the President to enforce/implement it. So, any potential for major compromise went out the window as soon as the President asserted the authority to selectively enforce/ignore particular elements of legislation -- and he did that with respect to the ACA long-before he did it with immigration. They had no reason to believe his word was good, no reason to trust him, and were right not to do any deals that required presidential good faith in the execution/enforcement/implementation of the laws.

Again, this is a total fabrication.

In late 2008, following the Presidential election, Eric Cantor was charged with the responsibility of leading the charge for the "No Honeymoon Strategy;" a GOP backroom policy of absolutely stonewalling the President and his agenda, regardless of the merit of his proposals.

Sen. Voinovich is on record blasting the Senate GOP leadership saying "If he (Obama) was for it, we had to be against it." This was the standing order from GOP Congressional leadership from Day 1.

To corroborate this, Rep. Jerry Lewis is on record telling Rep. David Obey that "I'm sorry, but leadership tells us we can't play." When asked for clarification, Lewis said "Exact quote (from leadership): ‘We can’t play.’ What they said right from the get-go was, It doesn’t matter what the hell you do, we ain’t going to help you. We’re going to stand on the sidelines and bitch."

TIME reported on this intransigence stating: "Republicans recognized that after Obama’s big promises about bipartisanship, they could break those promises by refusing to cooperate. In the words of Congressman Tom Cole, a deputy Republican whip: “We wanted the talking point: ‘The only thing bipartisan was the opposition.’ ”

Simply put, Q-Tip, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I find this to be an incredibly odd understanding of how our government is supposed to function. Nothing "broke-down." There was no agreement as to how the government should proceed on certain issues, and at their core, the two parties actually wanted to move in opposite directions. When members of Congress voted, they did not agree with the President's agenda, so they did not vote for it. That's how the system is supposed to work.

No that's not what happened. Congresspersons were whipped in accordance the GOP leadership's plan to have an, at the time, obstructionist approach to the President's agenda; from the minority. At the time the GOP was dominated in the House and Senate and little could be gained from bipartisanship, politically.

But by 2010, the tables had turned, and the GOP continued the strategy to politically damage the President.

This is not how Congress is supposed to work, because Congress' job is to represent the interests of the people who elect the individual members. Polls generally show that people do not support the intransigent and obstructionist policy of the GOP. Again, Congress is choosing not to represent the interests of the people.

Had the Framers of the Constitution wanted

This isn't a Constitutional discussion.. I'm not going to waste my time on something so idiotic. Stop bloviating.

And as I said above, the GOP refusal to cut deals that required good-faith on the part of the President was a logical and predictable response to his actions. Something that even commentators on the left pointed out at the time it happened.

And this is a lie, as has been pointed out. The strategy to obstruct the President's agenda happened before he ever took office (December 2008).

 

[spydy13]

If you ask me to give you one hundred dollars, and I say no because I don't want to give you any money, it is not a reasonable "compromise" for you to then say "how about $50", and then bitch because I refuse. That's essentially what happened. On most of those issues, the President and the GOP had completely different ideas on which direction the country should take. As a simplification, he wanted to go "left", and the GOP (rightly or wrongly)wanted to go "right". Going only halfway left is not a compromise.

So a compromise is when one side gets everything they want and other completely folds?

That's certainly how the Republicans have felt, but that's not what a compromise is.

Both sides should walk away from a compromise somewhat unhappy.

It also doesn't help when one side refuses to work with the other side even when they are willing to deal because any chance of that side being perceived as a winner is a non-starter.

Congress is broken. It's no wonder that the President has decided to do his own thing because the country can't afford to sit around while egomaniacs sit around having a dick measuring contest.

 

[MRMsix6]

Gouri and Q-tip arguing in every thread

 

[gourimoko]

Gouri and Q-tip arguing in every thread

I agree it is extremely annoying....

I have never known someone who I was so at odds with on so many diverse issues. I mean, we don't even agree on issues where I am to the right of center.

Like, wtf?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So a compromise is when one side gets everything they want and other completely folds? Both sides should walk away from a compromise somewhat unhappy.

You said this in response to my "Give me $100" scenario, so I have to ask....

Are you' saying that in my $100 demand scenario, the "fair compromise" is me giving you $50 instead of the $100 you demanded? Because both sides walk away "unhappy"?

If not, why isn't that a fair compromise?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I agree it is extremely annoying....

I have never known someone who I was so at odds with on so many diverse issues. I mean, we don't even agree on issues where I am to the right of center.

Like, wtf?

We agreed on Spock, dammit!

Although, come to think of it, we once did have a doozy arguing over Star Trek....

 

[gourimoko]

We agreed on Spock, dammit!

Although, come to think of it, we once did have a doozy arguing over Star Trek....

Exactly..! LOL!

 

[spydy13]

You said this in response to my "Give me $100" scenario, so I have to ask....

Are you' saying that in my $100 demand scenario, the "fair compromise" is me giving you $50 instead of the $100 you demanded? Because both sides walk away "unhappy"?

If not, why isn't that a fair compromise?

I said "somewhat unhappy." In that example the side seeking $100 would be "somewhat unhappy" that they only got half of what they wanted while the other side would be "somewhat unhappy" that they had to give $50 rather than the preferred $0, but that is still better than giving $100 which would leave them completely unhappy.

My point is that neither side should walk away completely happy.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I said "somewhat unhappy." In that example the side seeking $100 would be "somewhat unhappy" that they only got half of what they wanted while the other side would be "somewhat unhappy" that they had to give $50 rather than the preferred $0, but that is still better than giving $100 which would leave them completely unhappy.

My point is that neither side should walk away completely happy.

Except you now have $50 more than you had, and I have $50 less. The fact that you see that as a reasonable compromise is astonishing to me.

Can you at least see that a compromise must be perceived as better than the status quo, otherwise there is no incentive to do a deal at all? What is the benefit to me of giving you $50 when I get nothing in return?

That's the problem with the "compromises" the President was offering. They generally were offers to only give him half of what he wanted, but didn't include anything tangible in return. The compromise deals were, from the GOP perspective, worse than the status quo.

 

[gourimoko]

Except you now have $50 more than you had, and I have $50 less. The fact that you see that as a reasonable compromise is astonishing to me.

Maybe if you realized it wasn't your $100 to begin with, but everyone's, then you'd be less astonished.

Maybe if you thought, for one second that everyone participated in these national elections to elect leaders, and the #1 thing they wanted them to go to Washington to do was to compromise, then you'd be less astonished.

Maybe if you considered the history of bipartisanship that existed prior to Clinton being in office, then you'd be less astonished.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

To clarify, I stated that "I know for a fact," meaning, I know from first hand experience and trusted second hand conversations as an employee on his political campaign staff as well as a staffer for the DSCC.

Which is a fancy way of saying "in my opinion", but whatever.

In late 2008, following the Presidential election, Eric Cantor was charged with the responsibility of leading the charge for the "No Honeymoon Strategy;" a GOP backroom policy of absolutely stonewalling the President and his agenda, regardless of the merit of his proposals.

Sen. Voinovich is on record blasting the Senate GOP leadership saying "If he (Obama) was for it, we had to be against it." This was the standing order from GOP Congressional leadership from Day 1.

To corroborate this, Rep. Jerry Lewis is on record telling Rep. David Obey that "I'm sorry, but leadership tells us we can't play." When asked for clarification, Lewis said "Exact quote (from leadership): ‘We can’t play.’ What they said right from the get-go was, It doesn’t matter what the hell you do, we ain’t going to help you. We’re going to stand on the sidelines and bitch."

TIME reported on this intransigence stating: "Republicans recognized that after Obama’s big promises about bipartisanship, they could break those promises by refusing to cooperate. In the words of Congressman Tom Cole, a deputy Republican whip: “We wanted the talking point: ‘The only thing bipartisan was the opposition.’ ”

You can add to that list McConnell's "top priority" comment, as well as the fact that Obama got zero GOP votes in either the House or Senate in support of the ACA. All of which goes to show that by March 2010 (the month of the ACA vvote) anyone with the brains of a turnip knew that the GOP was not going to cooperate with the rest of Obama's major legislative agenda. Whatever naivete he may have had upon entering office should have vanished by then.

Btw, I do feel compelled to point out these GOP comments about opposing Obama's agenda have to be placed into context. The GOP-controlled 112th and 113th Congresses actually passed a total of 284 and 296 bills, respectively, that were signed into law by the President. Congress did not oppose everything he did or wanted to do.

in context, GOP comments about opposing Obama's agenda referred to the much more narrow category of major pieces of new legislation, creating new programs, etc., not rote opposition to every single bill.

No that's not what happened. Congresspersons were whipped in accordance the GOP leadership's plan to have an, at the time, obstructionist approach to the President's agenda; from the minority.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to stop major pieces of legislation with which you disagree. Most of those GOP members of Congress ran and were elected on promises to stop his major agenda items. And, Democrat leaders similarly whipped and pressured Democratic members of Congress to support the President's agenda, especially on controversial pieces of legislation like the Affordable Care Act. It was widely reported that some Democrats were really nervous because they were being pressured by the Administration to support it, and by their constituents to oppose it.

This is not how Congress is supposed to work, because Congress' job is to represent the interests of the people who elect the individual members. Polls generally show that people do not support the intransigent and obstructionist policy of the GOP. Again, Congress is choosing not to represent the interests of the people.

This whole concept you have of governance by poll numbers is ridiculous. The ACA was rammed through despite polls showing that it did not have majority support. The President just rammed through his immigration proposals despite polls showing the same there. And he just vetoed the Keystone Pipeline despite polls showing that a clear majority of voters favor it. That's not to mention things like the Libyan intervention that polls showed most voters also did not support.

This isn't a Constitutional discussion.. I'm not going to waste my time on something so idiotic. Stop bloviating.

Stop it yourself. You're claiming a system that was intended to make passage of legislation very difficult, and that contains structural biases enabling minority sentiment to stop legislation, is "broken" if controversial legislation is obstructed. It's ridiculous. Maybe you would personally prefer a system where all branches of government were obligated to look at the poll numbers and vote accordingly, but many other people would not prefer that. So, your repeated assertions regarding how the system is "supposed" to work is nothing more than a product of your own personal bias for a more activist government.

I generally prefer a government that does less, so I'm happy with a system biased towards inaction rather than action.

 

[spydy13]

Except you now have $50 more than you had, and I have $50 less. The fact that you see that as a reasonable compromise is astonishing to me.

Can you at least see that a compromise must be perceived as better than the status quo, otherwise there is no incentive to do a deal at all? What is the benefit to me of giving you $50 when I get nothing in return?

That's the problem with the "compromises" the President was offering. They generally were offers to only give him half of what he wanted, but didn't include anything tangible in return. The compromise deals were, from the GOP perspective, worse than the status quo.

The circumstances matter though.

The way you describe the situation it's like one person holding a gun to the other person's head, "demanding" that they give them money. That is clearly not a compromise, I agree with you on that.

But what if you were a business selling a widget or service for $100 and the customer talked your rate down? The customer would probably rather get the whatever they were buying for free or even cheaper but they are happy to get a discount nonetheless. The business would rather get full price but some circumstance may make them happy to at least get the $50.