Ted Cruz Blames Democrats For Congressional Dysfunction

[theDoctorisIn]

It's not the job of the Senate to put every piece of nonsense the House passes up for a vote - particularly when the House is purposefully sending bullshit like 40-odd bills repealing Obamacare, and countless other pieces of nonsense.

Precisely. the House is sending over bills that have NO CHANCE of being signed by the President & THEY KNOW IT. They're called "Show votes" All sound & fury, signifying nothing. Wasting the People's time is what the Repub House is doing.

The senate is doing the same, knowing the house won't buy the crap they are selling, so whats the difference?

No difference at all.

 

[Darkwind]

Lakhota, let me ask you this.

How many bills from the House has Harry Reid tabled or flatly ignored? Over 200. Congress (both houses) cannot be effective if one house is obstructing the other.

It's not the job of the Senate to put every piece of nonsense the House passes up for a vote - particularly when the House is purposefully sending bullshit like 40-odd bills repealing Obamacare, and countless other pieces of nonsense.

It's not the job of the House to put every piece of nonsense the Senate passes up for a vote - particularly when the Senate is purposefully sending bullshit bills that are out of their purview (taxation) or laws that double down on laws that exist which are not even being enforce now (immigration)...

A little honesty from you if you please.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It underlies the uselessness of the Senate.

The Senate, in many ways, is a more powerful body than the House.

I'm not speaking of powers; any of which could be assigned to the House. Why do we really need 2 groups of representatives to pass the same legislation? It makes little sense and with the behavior of the Senate recently, I'm not all together sure it serves a purpose any longer.

Well, the answer to "why" is answered in high school civics class.

It's "states" versus "people".

Whether it serves a purpose or not now is a different conversation.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Lakhota, let me ask you this.

How many bills from the House has Harry Reid tabled or flatly ignored? Over 200. Congress (both houses) cannot be effective if one house is obstructing the other.

It's not the job of the Senate to put every piece of nonsense the House passes up for a vote - particularly when the House is purposefully sending bullshit like 40-odd bills repealing Obamacare, and countless other pieces of nonsense.

It's not the job of the House to put every piece of nonsense the Senate passes up for a vote - particularly when the Senate is purposefully sending bullshit bills that are out of their purview (taxation) or laws that double down on laws that exist which are not even being enforce now (immigration)...

A little honesty from you if you please.

I don't disagree with anything in this post.

What "honesty" are you looking for, exactly?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Harry Reid hasn't blocked all bills from the House - just the ones that he can't support.

You won't get much of an argument as far as what "good" a legislative branch is.

The only good thing I can say about our political system is that it's probably better than all the others.

What? Why are you rationalizing his actions? Since when do we trust the reasoning of such an uber-partisan such as he?

Why should we "trust the reasoning" of John Boehner either?

Harry Reid is an "uber partisan" because that's quite literally his job. He was elected by members of his party for the specific job of representing the party's interest in the Senate.

I'm not describing the way I think things should be, I'm describing how things are.

Why should we trust anyone's reasoning?

Harry was elected to act in the best interests of his constituents, correct? Aren't they all? Well, it seems now that none of them are. I get the feeling you think there can be nothing done about it either. I beg to differ. An educated voter is better than an ignorant one. Facts are superior to rhetoric, bipartisanship is better than partisanship.

It's quite easy if you can get people to see past their own noses.

 

[OKTexas]

Perhaps it "should" be, but it never has been.

That's the whole point of majority leadership. They get to decide which bills are allowed for a vote.

Even if the bills are of utmost importance? Will you think highly of the majority leadership when they continually block important legislation based on their political views?

Sometimes I don't understand you.

Ever seen the panderer John Boehner in action?

Yep, he's almost as bad as reid.

 

[JimH52]

Who cares what the Canadian thinks?

 

[Kosh]

It's not the job of the Senate to put every piece of nonsense the House passes up for a vote - particularly when the House is purposefully sending bullshit like 40-odd bills repealing Obamacare, and countless other pieces of nonsense.

Precisely. the House is sending over bills that have NO CHANCE of being signed by the President & THEY KNOW IT. They're called "Show votes" All sound & fury, signifying nothing. Wasting the People's time is what the Repub House is doing.

The senate is doing the same, knowing the house won't buy the crap they are selling, so whats the difference?

Funny how the far left complains about such things when they were just as guilty as anyone. Then again maybe if Harry Reid would allow votes and discussions on things might be a bit different.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It should be.

One house should respect the work of the other House. If it will not pass the vote; what is the risk other than advertising what your party and it's members stand for?

Perhaps it "should" be, but it never has been.

That's the whole point of majority leadership. They get to decide which bills are allowed for a vote.

Even if the bills are of utmost importance? Will you think highly of the majority leadership when they continually block important legislation based on their political views?

Sometimes I don't understand you.

Legislation designed to avoid the credit downgrade was of the “utmost importance.”

Blocked by republicans.

Legislation designed to avoid the sequester was of the “utmost importance.”

Blocked by republicans.

Legislation designed to end the government shutdown was of the “utmost importance.”

Blocked by republicans.

Important legislation continually blocked by republicans based on their political views.

Understand now?

 

[OKTexas]

It underlies the uselessness of the Senate.

The Senate, in many ways, is a more powerful body than the House.

I'm not speaking of powers; any of which could be assigned to the House. Why do we really need 2 groups of representatives to pass the same legislation? It makes little sense and with the behavior of the Senate recently, I'm not all together sure it serves a purpose any longer.

Not since they went to direct elections of senators, the States should repeal the 17th amendment and take back the power to appoint senators where they will actually answer to the States.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What? Why are you rationalizing his actions? Since when do we trust the reasoning of such an uber-partisan such as he?

Why should we "trust the reasoning" of John Boehner either?

Harry Reid is an "uber partisan" because that's quite literally his job. He was elected by members of his party for the specific job of representing the party's interest in the Senate.

I'm not describing the way I think things should be, I'm describing how things are.

Why should we trust anyone's reasoning?

Harry was elected to act in the best interests of his constituents, correct? Aren't they all? Well, it seems now that none of them are. I get the feeling you think there can be nothing done about it either. I beg to differ. An educated voter is better than an ignorant one. Facts are superior to rhetoric, bipartisanship is better than partisanship.

It's quite easy if you can get people to see past their own noses.

Apparently a (small) majority of Harry Reid's constituents believe that he is acting in their best interests. Much of the time, the power involved in being part of the party leadership works out really well for that state.

There are things that can be done about it, but "ignorant voters" isn't the problem, nor is partisanship or rhetoric.

At this point in history, we have probably the most informed electorate in the history of this country. (Whether what they've been "informed" is correct or not is a different story) - and this country was (again, quite literally) founded on partisanship and rhetoric.

The Declaration of Independence is probably the most beautiful piece of rhetoric ever written.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why should we "trust the reasoning" of John Boehner either?

Harry Reid is an "uber partisan" because that's quite literally his job. He was elected by members of his party for the specific job of representing the party's interest in the Senate.

I'm not describing the way I think things should be, I'm describing how things are.

Why should we trust anyone's reasoning?

Harry was elected to act in the best interests of his constituents, correct? Aren't they all? Well, it seems now that none of them are. I get the feeling you think there can be nothing done about it either. I beg to differ. An educated voter is better than an ignorant one. Facts are superior to rhetoric, bipartisanship is better than partisanship.

It's quite easy if you can get people to see past their own noses.

Apparently a (small) majority of Harry Reid's constituents believe that he is acting in their best interests. Much of the time, the power involved in being part of the party leadership works out really well for that state.

There are things that can be done about it, but "ignorant voters" isn't the problem, nor is partisanship or rhetoric.

At this point in history, we have probably the most informed electorate in the history of this country. (Whether what they've been "informed" is correct or not is a different story) - and this country was (again, quite literally) founded on partisanship and rhetoric.

The Declaration of Independence is probably the most beautiful piece of rhetoric ever written.

I disagree with the assertion that the Declaration was a piece of rhetoric, namely because the people who wrote it acted upon it. What you see now is people launching rhetoric and doing nothing about it.

Are you honestly telling me that the American electorate are sufficiently informed of who and what they are voting for, and can vote accordingly? Forgive me, but that is a bunch of garbage.

Partisanship by one party or the other can affect the way people vote, thus replacing knowledge with emotion, making them ignorant. Same can be said of rhetoric. I'm baffled as to why you think partisanship or partisan rhetoric isn't the problem. Because frankly, if you would pay more attention, that's what's going on at this very moment.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Who cares what the Canadian thinks?

Why are you here then?

 

[Stephanie]

Who cares what the Canadian thinks?

maybe the people he represents and the people in his party. it doesn't matter if the rest of you care...You on the left gnash your teeth over him just speaking and then the names come flying like moron, his whole family was attacked etc as with any Republican

it like watching a cartoon...it's omg omg omg omg he blamed the Democrats for the dysfunction congress, omg omg omg omg
it's not pretty

 

[Toro]

Not since they went to direct elections of senators, the States should repeal the 17th amendment and take back the power to appoint senators where they will actually answer to the States.

Because democracy sucks and people are stoopid.

 

[Toro]

Who cares what the Canadian thinks?

That makes him the smartest member of the Senate!

 

[Synthaholic]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is worried about dysfunction in Congress, but he's placing the blame for inaction squarely at the feet of Democrats in Washington.

"It should embarrass all of us, and it's the result of a deliberate partisan decision," the Texas Republican said in an interview scheduled to air on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

It's a bit much for the ideological bomb-thrower to lament dysfunction in Congress just days after vowing to block all nominees to an understaffed State Department until the White House explains why the Federal Aviation Administration temporarily grounded U.S. flights to Israel. And there's still the matter of last year's federal government shutdown, which was spurred by Cruz's quixotic demand to defund the Affordable Care Act.

More: Ted Cruz Blames Democrats For Congressional Dysfunction

Does that moron actually believe that - or is it just more political theater and red meat for the hardcore right? I suspect most of his followers believe it.

Chris Matthews described him perfectly, Joe McCarthy with brains.

Except he doesn't have brains. He is schooled in a particular area, like a pastry chef. Just because he can argue law, doesn't make you smart. It means you studied that subject to death. Otherwise that logic would apply to Dr. Paul Broun of Georgia, who is a moron, even though he may be a fine doctor. Same with Dr. Phil Gingrey, Dr. Micheal Burgess of Texas - both dumbasses.

I think that all in all he probably won't run for POTUS. He knows he can't win a national election.

No, he will run for POTUS for the same reason Gingrich, Huckameenajad, and Santorum (Google it!) ran for POTUS: to get that free platform to raise their profile and charge more out on the speech circuit.

He's going to follow the money and try to stay relevant, grab as much air and ink as he can and get rich doing it. In short, he's Sarah Palin in a tie and pants.

He's a phony. Just like Poor Sarah.


BTW: using bold for all your posts is really fucking annoying, and I'm sure that everyone would like you to stop. Thank you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, they do - in the sense that they can vote them out of office - if Harry Reid had lost his last election, he wouldn't be Majority Leader now.

But the party leadership as a whole has a lot more direct power in Washington than any individual state's general population.

I was afraid you would say something like this. Since when do the elected have more power over the electors? Are they not there to represent them? Why give the people the right to vote if all you say is "they have more power than the people" essentially?

We're discussing the reality of the situation, not what "should be".

Have I run into a defeatist? I never pegged you as one.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why should we trust anyone's reasoning?

Harry was elected to act in the best interests of his constituents, correct? Aren't they all? Well, it seems now that none of them are. I get the feeling you think there can be nothing done about it either. I beg to differ. An educated voter is better than an ignorant one. Facts are superior to rhetoric, bipartisanship is better than partisanship.

It's quite easy if you can get people to see past their own noses.

Apparently a (small) majority of Harry Reid's constituents believe that he is acting in their best interests. Much of the time, the power involved in being part of the party leadership works out really well for that state.

There are things that can be done about it, but "ignorant voters" isn't the problem, nor is partisanship or rhetoric.

At this point in history, we have probably the most informed electorate in the history of this country. (Whether what they've been "informed" is correct or not is a different story) - and this country was (again, quite literally) founded on partisanship and rhetoric.

The Declaration of Independence is probably the most beautiful piece of rhetoric ever written.

I disagree with the assertion that the Declaration was a piece of rhetoric, namely because the people who wrote it acted upon it. What you see now is people launching rhetoric and doing nothing about it.

I think you should look up the definition of "rhetoric".

Are you honestly telling me that the American electorate are sufficiently informed of who and what they are voting for, and can vote accordingly? Forgive me, but that is a bunch of garbage.

No. I'm telling you that right now, the average American has more access to information (from any and all viewpoints) than ever before in human history.

"Informed" tends to mean "agrees with me", in the context that you're using it.

Partisanship by one party or the other can affect the way people vote, thus replacing knowledge with emotion, making them ignorant. Same can be said of rhetoric. I'm baffled as to why you think partisanship or partisan rhetoric isn't the problem. Because frankly, if you would pay more attention, that's what's going on at this very moment.

Partisanship is the way the minority opinion is heard in this country, on any issue. Without partisanship, it becomes mob rule.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I was afraid you would say something like this. Since when do the elected have more power over the electors? Are they not there to represent them? Why give the people the right to vote if all you say is "they have more power than the people" essentially?

We're discussing the reality of the situation, not what "should be".

Have I run into a defeatist? I never pegged you as one.

I would use the term "realist", not "defeatist".

I'm not "defeated".