Reid won't fund care for kids with cancer

[Marokai Backbeat]

It's an utterly disingenuous tactic, and you're well aware of it, Vosem. Democrats aren't budging (so far) because caving to that tactic completely lets the Republicans off free from public outrage by reducing as much inconvenience of the government shutdown as possible, but still letting the Republicans grandstand over something that they're obsessed with on a level that no political party has been obsessed with anything in recent political history.

Democrats had one request: a clean, simple, funding resolution to keep the government funded until the Republicans turn around and do this all again in however long it takes for the funds to run out, as they've been wont to do. No special funding, just funding the laws and the programs on the books. Republicans don't want to fund one of those laws, so they caused the shutdown, and now that they're getting all sorts of flak for it, they want to mitigate the pain caused by the shutdown they caused so the media can move on and the public can forget about it, but they can still hold up Obamacare. If you proudly think that's an acceptable political move, and the fault of the evil Democrats for not gladly taking, you are a sociopath or completely ignorant.

There is nothing to negotiate. It's a law, and this is a funding debate, not a debate over a new health reform proposal. The time to replace the health care law was anytime in the last two and ahalf years+, and they declined to seriously do so. These constant "government by crisis/shutdown/temporary funding resolution" controversies have got to stop, are not how a country of this size and stature should be run, and is the fault of one group. Spoiler: It's not the Democrats.

What the hell is there even to negotiate??

How to end the government shutdown on some mutually acceptable terms...

What those would be, I don't know. But Republicans have at least indicated a willingness to try and find them, while Democrats have reacted by spitting in their faces.

There is one acceptable term: clean government funding, no strings attached. Republicans said no. That's the beginning and end of this debate. You are a crazy person.

[Marokai Backbeat]

There is one sticking point that this shutdown revolves around and that is not funding Obamacare.

This is why Vosem's argument seems so hilariously stupid. He admits the Republicans caused this shutdown themselves by refusing to fund Obamacare, but a few days in, it's now the Democrats fault for... refusing to agree to funding everything but Obamacare. What?

[Marokai Backbeat]

It's an utterly disingenuous tactic, and you're well aware of it, Vosem.

Republicans have been quite open that their 'goal', their best-case scenario, is to end the shutdown and defund Obamacare. There's nothing secretive or disingenuous about it, it is common knowledge.

That wasn't what I targeted as being disingenuous. Their goal is clear and straightforward enough. The idea that these mini-funding resolutions are any sort of good-faith negotiating effort is disingenuous, however, because the ultimate effect of passing a bunch of resolutions that fund/support everything but Obamacare is just... exactly what they wanted to begin with.

There is nothing to negotiate.

...the alternative is literally waiting for Republicans to change their minds about Obamacare en masse. What do you think the likelihood of that is? Spoiler: Not high.

Do you seriously not understand the implications of the words you are typing, here? You are essentially saying "Look, I know what the Republicans are doing is basically psychotic and they're being completely unreasonable about how they're going about this, and it is all their fault to start with, but why can't the Democrats just go along with everything the Republicans want so we can all just put this behind us? Why are they being so unfair?"

Your position about this is the most logically inconsistent of anyone on this forum. You admit the Republicans are at fault for throwing this tantrum, but still blame the Democrats anyway for not caving just to keep them happy anyway. That makes no sense whatsoever.

It's a law, and this is a funding debate, not a debate over a new health reform proposal.

True. Why is a funding debate less valid than a debate over a new proposal?

Because one is a negotiation over law, and one is a negotiation over whether or not we should pay for the things we actually pass and has survived countless challenges to its existence. If Republicans wanted to negotiate over health law, they had their chance; but they were more concerned with tallying up their way to one million repeal attempts. There's no possible give-and-take on whether or not we should fund or implement something in a yes/no fashion. The time for that was.. the entirety of the last Congress.

Not to belabor the point here, but there is no possible negotiation with someone who is saying No, and someone who is saying Yes. The reason Democrats have the moral highground is because this is not some sort of new law to-be-created, this is about trying to defund and delay an existing law. Republicans are picking a fight about it, and Democrats just wanted everything on the books to be funded fairly. One side instigated this over one very specific thing. Democrats are under no obligation to give any ground because they're not trying to take any.