Greg Walden of Oregon voted to shut down the government. Thaaanks, Greg! (walden.house.gov)

{oregon}

97 ups - 32 downs = 65 votes

110 comments submitted at 10:47:54 on Oct 1, 2013 by Gubmint_Twerker

  • [-]
  • MrTurek
  • -13 Points
  • 15:57:14, 1 October

There are two sides to this issue. It's slightly more complicated than the majority of people seem to believe. Sure you can try to put it in laymens terms, but it's not a simple issue.

  • [-]
  • racoonpeople
  • 8 Points
  • 17:19:30, 1 October

75% of Americans oppose this and that number will grow.

This, for one, stops things like Meals on Wheels for seniors in many rural areas. Rural Oregonians, do your part. If you know an older neighbor or relative call them up and make sure they have food.

  • [-]
  • IAmRoot
  • 19 Points
  • 16:05:17, 1 October

The Affordable Care Act is a law. It's already been passed. Obama campaigned on it and won. It passed Supreme Court scrutiny. The Republicans didn't even have enough votes to filibuster. They lost fair and square. There are no two sides to this.

  • [-]
  • MrTurek
  • -10 Points
  • 16:14:00, 1 October

This isn't a game about winning or losing, it has nothing at all to do with that. It's simply about deciding what we as a country need, some believe we do not need these things.

Edit: Tried to be unbiased, but the bias in this fucking subreddit is horrible.

  • [-]
  • IAmRoot
  • 12 Points
  • 16:16:55, 1 October

And that argument has already been had, multiple times. It's a law. Shutting down the government is not a good way to get things done.

  • [-]
  • gasadf
  • 10 Points
  • 16:22:49, 1 October

Nonsense. The Republicans have had one goal since Barack Obama took office, and that's to make him lose. It doesn't matter what it is or what it takes, as long as they make him the loser. Hell, a good portion of "Obamacare" is ideas that Republicans had put forward in the past, and they still opposed it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas

  • [-]
  • MrTurek
  • 1 Points
  • 16:40:54, 1 October

Politics is a fucked up game, without a doubt. Like I had stated initially, sure as it stands right now Republicans generally oppose a lot of things that are put in front of them on these major bills. Does that mean they directly oppose Obama and want him to lose? No. That simply means they are not fond of what the bill entails, they do not like amendments to the bill, there is too much baggage with the bill, etc. That does not directly mean they hate Obama.

  • [-]
  • arche22
  • 9 Points
  • 17:26:59, 1 October

They LITERALLY said they were going to do everything they can to oppose him. They didn't even sugarcoat it.

  • [-]
  • gasadf
  • 5 Points
  • 17:33:40, 1 October

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc

  • [-]
  • Jordanis
  • 8 Points
  • 17:11:50, 1 October

>Does that mean they directly oppose Obama and want him to lose? No.

Hahaha, have you been paying attention to anything they say? The defeat of Obama has been item #1 on the GOP agenda since day one. Don't you remember McConnell saying that their priority was to make Obama a one-term president?

  • [-]
  • Anonymous_Ascendent
  • 3 Points
  • 22:29:59, 1 October

Republican congressmen have explicitly stated that their only purpose this term is to make Obama fail. They don't try to hide it, there's hundreds of quotes.

  • [-]
  • zoidberg1339
  • -1 Points
  • 02:17:44, 2 October

Only one "r" in Barack, bro.

A "barrack" is what a soldier lives in.

  • [-]
  • racoonpeople
  • 2 Points
  • 17:22:24, 1 October

> This isn't a game about winning or losing, it has nothing at all to do with that. It's simply about deciding what we as a country need, some believe we do not need these things.

So? Your side lost. You don't get to burn down the world's largest economy because you have elected pouty manchildren to Congress to represent you who can't deal with losing. Fucking grow up.

What if the Democrats shut down government everytime they were in minority when the GOP did not pass a federal gay marriage bill?

Would you support the Democrats or are you a hypocrite‽

  • [-]
  • Jordanis
  • 8 Points
  • 16:11:46, 1 October

It's very simple, actually: Gerrymandering and urbanization have created Republican 'safe' districts, which will reliably elect whatever candidate makes it onto the ballot with an (R) next to their name. Therefore, representatives in 'safe' districts can most easily (by far) be threatened in their party primary. The party primary is dominated by the most passionate voters, and right now the most passionate GOP voters are the Tea Partiers--that is to say, batshit insane.

Thus, the most dangerous thing those representatives can do is attempt to actually govern. Government involves negotiation and compromise, which looks like ideological weakness to the Tea Party, who is sure they will prevail if they are stubborn enough. Ideological weakness will be purged as soon as possible. So the safest thing a large number of Republican reps can do, career wise, is completely shut down government.

  • [-]
  • kubrick66
  • 3 Points
  • 16:51:09, 1 October

> Gerrymandering and urbanization have created Republican 'safe' districts

It works the other way too. Gerrymandering is not just a Republican thing. I live in the 3rd district where Blumenauer won with something like 75% of the vote.

  • [-]
  • MrTurek
  • -1 Points
  • 16:29:46, 1 October

There are batshit insane people on both sides, Republicans and Democrats alike. Pointing the finger directly at an entire political party is completely ignorant and not even digging into the deeper issues. If you're going to argue that these republicans have safe seats due to their electors, the same thing can be said about many democrats. There are plenty of very socialistic democrats currently serving in the Senate and the House, who also walk all over the Constitution in many instances. The government shutdown was basically seen a mile away, everyone knew both sides would be stubborn as fuck and everyone expected this to be the outcome, but most people thought it would be a last minute change of plans and compromise. Neither side will budge, someone will eventually make the call for both sides to give and take. It's a healthy process if anything, it keeps us in the middle as a government, balancing out both sides of batshit insane. Sure the government is progressively getting worse, but do not completely shit on one party just for the sake of actually getting to do so(because it sounds entirely as if you're bashing for the sake of it).

  • [-]
  • Jordanis
  • 5 Points
  • 17:10:05, 1 October

There are extremists on both sides, but it's only one side's extremists who want to drown government in a bathtub. Doing the 'ohh, both sides are just as bad' dance is completely, utterly disingenuous. Democrats were angry during W's presidency, but they still tried to govern. The dysfunctionality (please note that I'm not talking about quality of policy, but the fact of being unable to execute any policy whatsoever) of the federal government can be laid completely at the feet of the Republican party.

  • [-]
  • snugglebandit
  • 2 Points
  • 16:37:36, 1 October

What you and the tea party fail to grasp is that there is no more two sides on this issue. There is no more debate. It is the law of the land. Attempts to defund it and holding the economy hostage are seen by the majority of the US population as petulant and crazy. This is going to suck until it gets fixed but the political losers are going to be the republicans, guaranteed. Not just the tea partiers but all those who coddled them and their insanity and allowed this to happen.

  • [-]
  • wallsbecametheworld
  • 1 Points
  • 17:50:44, 1 October

> It is the law of the land.

Slavery was once the law of the land.

  • [-]
  • snugglebandit
  • 2 Points
  • 18:09:42, 1 October

So you are equating more people having access to healthcare that is affordable and won't refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions with slavery? You must be kidding. Nobody is that stupid. I hope.

  • [-]
  • wallsbecametheworld
  • 2 Points
  • 18:47:10, 1 October

No, that's what you're doing. I'm saying that the fact that something is "the law of the land" does not mean that it is a good idea.

  • [-]
  • snugglebandit
  • 0 Points
  • 02:06:18, 2 October

No I'm not and i didn't. Are you trying to gaslight in a text conversion or is your reading comprehension that poor? Were you home schooled? It wouldn't surprise me. Your arguments are riddled with fallacies and yes you quoted my comment about the ACA being the law of the land and equated it with slavery.

  • [-]
  • wallsbecametheworld
  • 1 Points
  • 02:21:54, 2 October

You sure make a lot of assumptions.

  • [-]
  • snugglebandit
  • 1 Points
  • 02:37:47, 2 October

You sure don't make much sense.

  • [-]
  • rogue780
  • 0 Points
  • 16:51:34, 1 October

snugglebandit: you don't agree with me? You're lumped in with the tea party!

  • [-]
  • AspenSix
  • 2 Points
  • 18:42:49, 1 October

The vote is simple, why he voted may not be.

  • [-]
  • Anonymous_Ascendent
  • 2 Points
  • 22:27:33, 1 October

2 sides. 1 side that refuses to compromise. 1 side that seeks to blackmail and extort the other into compromising.