The House Democrats Sit-In

[136or142]

Man this incident proves the media is liberal. When the GOP threatens to filibuster its considered shutting down the senate and undemocratic but when the dems shut down the house its not considered undemocratic or shutting down the house lol

Do you not see a difference between literally shutting down the government for two weeks and occupying an empty building after the House has already gone to recess?

I'd rather the government be shut down, personally. The sequester that came out of that was a good thing for (temporarily) slowing down the explosion of the national debt.

Caused by George W Bush's reckless tax cuts and mostly passed with Republican votes.

[136or142]

A shameless publicity stunt on the part of the Democrats.

A crass money grab on the part of the Democrats, actually soliciting donations by using the Orlando tragedy as a fund raising effort.

Democrats exhibiting shamelessly pictures of the victims in Orlando, which at the very least is in extremely bad taste.    

A Republican governor literally put a woman under house arrest in order to exploit the public's irrational fear that she might have had Ebola, even though she never even presented a single symptom.

Every Republican governor in the nation vowed to try and prevent Syrian refugees from living in their state even though they have no authority to do so.

I don't post this to suggest 'both sides do it' because you've presented no evidence the Democrats are trying to fundraise over this as opposed to trying to force a vote.  So, only idiot Republicans (redundant, sorry) do this.

Edit: The DNC and Nancy Pelosi both sent out fundraising tweets.

[136or142]

Man this incident proves the media is liberal.

Old meme.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Republicans caused a shutdown of the government.  Nice try, though.

and that was all the blame of the republicans lol, what about obama and reid not budging on budget negotiations in 2013.

It wasn't an attempt to negotiate on the budget, which Obama has done his entire time as President with the Republicans in the majority, it was an attempt to reopen the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) which was legislation that had already passed.

[136or142]

The Republicans say that a gun bill that prevents people from buying guns based on the inaccurate terror watch list and/or no fly list is unconstitutional. But, based on the United States vs Wheeler decision of 1920, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitutional protections of Freedom of Movement also included the freedom to travel without unreasonable restrictions. So, based on that, the inaccurate terrorist watch list/no fly list should already be regarded as unconstitutional, and the government should have long ago been required to make it as accurate as possible.

Yet, the Republicans didn't seem to care about this violation of Constitutional protections at all. (I believe the ACLU has taken the government to court over the violation of the right to travel) and only now is concerned that the watch lists seem to have a lot of problems. So, we know the Republicans don't really care about the Constitution, just about the votes of gun nuts and pleasing the psychopaths in the NRA.

[136or142]

It seems Silly American and Fuzzy Bear are increasingly a self-supporting structure these days.

What do you expect?  One admits to being silly and the other uses fuzzy logic.

[136or142]

House Democrats seem to be foaming at the mouth over gun control in response to the attack in Orlando. Why is it that these same Democrats aren't concerned about the murders taking place in Chicago? Why is it that gun control is only brought up in response to an ISIS attack?

This statement is patently nonsense. Democrats try to bring up gun control after every mass shooting. It's Republicans who take the "Gee, what are you gonna do? Stuff happens" approach whenever there's a mass shooting, except for when the shooter is a muslim. 

As for how this is different than Republicans abusing the filibuster or shutting down the government, that's easy. Republicans obstruct in order to prevent business from getting done, including even the most basic responsibilities assigned to congress (see refusing to even hold hearings on a SCOTUS nominee, refusing to pass a routine budget that doesn't include a poison pill "repeal Obamacare provision, etc.). This sit-in is being staged to try to get something done, not to obstruct. And since the official policy of congressional Republicans is to never get anything done, I'm not sure what vital business anyone thinks is being held up because of this. 

This, however, is not a filibuster (which, however undemocratic, is part of the rules that neither party has wanted to give up for one reason or another).  The House doesn't have filibusters. 

This is an anarchic display of misconduct by folks that didn't have the numbers to get what they wanted done, and who passed on what would have been a compromise that represented achievement. 

In this, the Democrats forfeited some of the moral high ground they could once claim.  One of the things that has disgusted me about the GOP over the last 7-8 years is their desire to sabotage Obama's proposals to ENSURE that they fail.  Obamacare is a prime example; it is actually a Republican-based plan dating back to what the GOP was advancing in the 1970s, and a plan that, with ongoing maintenance and tinkering, could succeed, but they want it to fail.  Democrats are not wrong to point that out.  Compromise and achievement would be to the credit of the GOP on Obamacare, and it would have been to the credit of the Democrats had they voted in the Cornyn Bill.  Someone has to go first.

The GOP has earned Democrats' enmity.  They would "deserve it" if after Trump is elected (if he wins) they filibustered and blocked every single appointment Trump made.  They could do it, and it might play in today's environment.  But America doesn't "deserve it".  A republican form of government allows elected representatives to use their best judgement in legislating, but they are supposed to use their best judgement on behalf of the nation they serve, first, and on behalf of the constituency they represent, second.  There was none of that in the Democrats' action yesterday, and the way they went about it dealt a blow to the perception of stability in our democracy that the American people could have done without.

Both sides are completely dug in, and there seems to no longer be any thought given to actually working things out in order to move things forward. The word "compromise" no longer represents a positive option, and the republic is suffering because of it. As you say, in the past, there was a recognition of our being one nation, where today the divide is seen as a chasm that simply cannot be crossed. It's sad, but that's where we're at.

How could the Republicans compromise?  They and their partner here, the NRA, have done their best convincing Republican voters that Second Amendment Rights are absolute.  How can you compromise on something that you've told people is absolute, especially when, since I don't believe these Republicans are lying, many of the House Members themselves likely believe the Second Amendment is absolute.

[136or142]

Republicans want to allow people on terrorist watch lists to buy guns all because they are afraid of the NRA coming after them this fall. That's the embarrassing part and that's the part that Democrats should be taking advantage of.

Instead of pulling this stuff, they SHOULD be running ad after ad for every senator who voted against those bills calling them "soft on terrorism and soft on crime." That's what they are, after all. They don't care about limiting the sale of guns to criminals and terrorists all because Billy Bob in Alabama might be offended.

I don't see the contradiction.  I think the Democrats in the House know full well that the Republican majority in the House would have voted down the Democratic legislation on this.  They just want the Republican members of the House to have to record the vote, so that they could then run ads like you suggested against Republican House members as well.

Despite the history that even though nearly always more Americans favor gun control that the majority of voters who actually vote based on this issue vote against politicians who support gun control, I think Ryan is afraid that with the incredible increase in the number of mass shootings and now with this shooting, that maybe that history no longer applies, at least not right now, and he's desperate to avoid Republicans in marginal districts having to vote on this.

[136or142]

A shameless publicity stunt on the part of the Democrats.

A crass money grab on the part of the Democrats, actually soliciting donations by using the Orlando tragedy as a fund raising effort.

Democrats exhibiting shamelessly pictures of the victims in Orlando, which at the very least is in extremely bad taste.    

A Republican governor literally put a woman under house arrest in order to exploit the public's irrational fear that she might have had Ebola, even though she never even presented a single symptom.

Every Republican governor in the nation vowed to try and prevent Syrian refugees from living in their state even though they have no authority to do so.

I don't post this to suggest 'both sides do it' because you've presented no evidence the Democrats are trying to fundraise over this as opposed to trying to force a vote.  So, only idiot Republicans (redundant, sorry) do this.

Edit: The DNC and Nancy Pelosi both sent out fundraising tweets.

Proves my statement.  You think I made this up?

I am, by the way, a strong proponent of strict gun control.

No, but you didn't present any evidence either.  So, it was natural for me to believe you just assumed they were engaging in fund raising off of this.

[136or142]

Bad move. Young people are a lot less likely to support an assault weapons ban than older Americans. This could be the moment that the Democrats start losing the youth vote.

Are you being sarcastic?