Werthless wrote:They need to make one adult sized.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:That face-to-face conversation would not have gone well

Please do elaborate

Where we stand on the vote can't help but affect our opinion about the procedural issues that drive the frustration coming from the minority party.

I also can appreciate that these procedures are in place to protect both majority and minority opinions. They should push to change the rules if the minority opinions are not well represented.

Have you any experience with the many & various ways people employ to generate changes of rules? If you do, you probably are aware that there's not just A way.

& I can't say I followed it completely but your murky example of a Senate action seems irrelevant here.

and finally the polling results I've seen bandied about suggest 9/10ths of mammals feel like taking some kind of action toward some kind of gun safety legislation makes sense. So "where [do] you stand on the vote"?

Werthless wrote:That face-to-face conversation would not have gone well...

Having a 20 on 1 conversation against adept politicians who disagree with you makes it very difficult to hold your own. It doesnt matter if you are a great 1-on-1 debater, it's just a challenging situation. There will be a ton of effective one-liners that the 20 people would be able to deliver with much deliberation (ie. someone could spend 10 minutes thinking of a line, deliver it, then be silent for the next 10 minutes). Sound bite central.

Uhhmm.

This wouldn't have been a "debate"-type situation. Ryan would ask, informally, to talk briefly with Lewis, Clark, 2-3 of their choosing of whomever else was deemed sit-in 'leadership'.

It would have been a semi-private (cameras can see but not hear well), informal, hot enough for you, how 'bout them Nationals, how's your family, here's what I'm thinking/what are you thinking, my plan of action for the next half-hour is blah blah, y'know human -to- human conversation. defusing a perceived 'confrontation', pre-formalities - since as I understand it, the sit-in had no 'formal' standing - by being a mensch. Ryan's NOT a mensch, true, but an actual leader would have some rudimentary feel for doing that kind of thing.

Passing a budget is an obligation of Congress. The US Senate did not approve for 6 straight years... the first 6 years of Obama's presidency. Do you remember? The House was passing budgets left and right, and the Senate was refusing action. It's very similar.

TenuredVulture wrote:Hey JH, did you see this from Ross Baker?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/c ... /86278828/