Should John Boehner Be Expelled?

[Eos]

Reference material for the blissfully unaware;

http://www.southperry.net/showthread...ent%20Shutdown
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.1475945
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...ner-97839.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...35e_story.html


Now the Titular question -

Based on his current obstructionism should his actions be considered a breech of his responsibilities and lead to an epulsion hearing?

It's been argued that it's not entirely his fault because he has to have a certain majority within his own party to accept anything, but as the leader he's responsible for achieving that and having his own party's internal affairs in order, so I think those two somewhat cancel each other out.

The follow up question of course is whether or not Expulsion would actually accomplish anything, or make matters worse. On the one hand it provides a scapegoat, which generally satisfies the populace, and hopefully would show the others that they will be held accountable for their actions, but it also creates a vacuum and doesn't actually solve anything, it purely punishes.

Me, I say he's earned it but they won't do it because no one wants to remind everyone else it's actually doable and open the gate to be next.

I believe the time has come that we need to establish a Recall system. It wasn't logical or doable back in our founding days, but at this point I think it would be far more effective if our politicians were actually answerable to the people they represent rather than being free to disregard anyone but the people financing their ideologies.

[KhainiWest]

I do feel like a threat looming over them like that would be very beneficial to us as the public. But I feel like the IMMEDIATE reaction would be attempt to impeach Obama, legitimately. When I was watching that Cspan regarding the funding of obamacare, it was a bunch of children, I swear to f`ucking god. The speaker had to warn them like 3 times to stop CONVERSING on the floor for f`uck sake.

[Razmos]

I know this isn't shenanigans and i'm being immature here... but seriously? his name is "boner"?

[PirateIzzy]

I guess you could say he....boehned the government.

[Razmos]

I guess you could say he....boned the government.

Boehned.

[PirateIzzy]

snip

That's what happens when I get distracted, I lose focus of what I was originally going to type

[Sega]

Southperry: KhainiWest-Serious responce gets a pomegranate
Razmos and PirateIzzy post about "boner" and they get pineapples. Nice.

[PirateIzzy]

Southperry: KhainiWest-Serious responce gets a pomegranate
Razmos and PirateIzzy post about "boner" and they get pineapples. Nice.

To be fair, me and Razmos were giving each other pineapples at first. The guy who gave KW a pomegranate probably didn't even see my post yet.
I don't know why he gave him a pomegranate; you'd have to have ask him. Some people on SP give pomegranates to posts as if they get a thrill out of doing so.

[y0y0y0y0shi0]

I meant to pineapple it.
Sheesh :<

[ChaoticCJ]

The rate that this thread became a Shenanigans thread, is opposite to chance of this happening.

In all reality, "what difference does it make?" Even if you were to get rid of Boehner, Cantor would just take his place, and (I think/believe) Cantor is even more conservative than Boehner. The republican position isn't going to change without some kind of consequence or out. The same goes from the democrats; without an outside force, they are not going to change.

I see what you are getting at though, changing the system so that people feel more involved. 88% of people feel like the government controls them, rather than the other way around. I am all for giving the people more power, but look at this thread, look at the state of America. People don't know and just don't care, it is part of why we are in this problem.

We also have to remember that the people of his district re-elected him, even Reid who is even is less popular than Boehner got re-elected. Like KhainiWest said, people would legitimately recall Obama, and Reid, and Boehner, and so on. We would be having recalls so often, it may have negative effect on the world. Presidents and people of power are elected to make the "hard decisions," for the "greater good," even if the people don't like it.

[Sephie]

On the flip side, if nothing happens to him, all it does is set a precedent saying that you can deadlock the government as a threat to further your own agenda all without any significant repercussions.

Hey who knows? Maybe they might get what they want... but if they don't then they get some bad PR, but at least they aren't criminals or anything. They can even share that bad PR with their opponents for the same exact reasons people are mad about them.

And meanwhile, the American people are the ones to suffer.

[KhainiWest]

In all reality, "what difference does it make?" Even if you were to get rid of Boehner, Cantor would just take his place, and (I think/believe) Cantor is even more conservative than Boehner. The republican position isn't going to change without some kind of consequence or out. The same goes from the democrats; without an outside force, they are not going to change.

I see what you are getting at though, changing the system so that people feel more involved. 88% of people feel like the government controls them, rather than the other way around. I am all for giving the people more power, but look at this thread, look at the state of America. People don't know and just don't care, it is part of why we are in this problem.

We also have to remember that the people of his district re-elected him, even Reid who is even is less popular than Boehner got re-elected. Like KhainiWest said, people would legitimately recall Obama, and Reid, and Boehner, and so on. We would be having recalls so often, it may have negative effect on the world. Presidents and people of power are elected to make the "hard decisions," for the "greater good," even if the people don't like it.

Well to simplify, by getting rid of Boehner who was held accountable for his failures, would probably discourage Cantor or anyone genuinely and knowingly unfit for the job. It would become a disadvantage to be a member because the responsibility now is on you and you will be held accountable. I feel as though if this system was to reach some form of recognition along with some execution it may make a change where their jobs feel less like tenure and more like what it was intended to be. Of course this is the optimistic stance on this change

@Sephie; During that congressional hearing, I head "American people" a lot, but it wasn't the democrat's, it was the republicans, slandering that defense, abusing it like a pathetic outreach for sympathy. I sh`it you not, the argument was so childish, so, repetitive that it was mind numbing.
Those who appose the care "THIS ISN'T FAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, CONGRESS SHOULD BE FORCED FOR THIS PLAN TOO, IT WILL CRIPPLE US AND RUIN LIVES", where the democrats tried to stress that this should be recognized as law, and they have already negotiated.

They 'technically' did. Essentially democrats evidently dont know how to haggle at a middle school fu`cking level and gave everything as the starting offer, then when republicans rebutted with even more restrictive "conditions", of course the democrats were up in arms about it. It was the most unnecessary childish thing I have seen on both sides, so in actuality the country rests solely on getting that entire organization out on its ass. I don't see any other way.

[Moonlapse]

@Sephie; During that congressional hearing, I head "American people" a lot, but it wasn't the democrat's, it was the republicans, slandering that defense, abusing it like a pathetic outreach for sympathy. I sh`it you not, the argument was so childish, so, repetitive that it was mind numbing.
Those who appose the care "THIS ISN'T FAIR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, CONGRESS SHOULD BE FORCED FOR THIS PLAN TOO, IT WILL CRIPPLE US AND RUIN LIVES", where the democrats tried to stress that this should be recognized as law, and they have already negotiated.

They 'technically' did. Essentially democrats evidently don't know how to haggle at a middle school fu`cking level and gave everything as the starting offer, then when republicans rebutted with even more restrictive "conditions", of course the democrats were up in arms about it. It was the most unnecessary childish thing I have seen on both sides, so in actuality the country rests solely on getting that entire organization out on its ass. I don't see any other way.

I was livid at the Obama administration for that whole wiretapping thing, and even thought some of his policies were ridiculous. Healthcare Reform was not one of those ridiculous policies. And you are right; it was already decided. The Repubs really dropped the ball and I hope people choose wisely in the coming elections.

Hillary 2016?

[Eos]

Presidents and people of power are elected to make the "hard decisions," for the "greater good," even if the people don't like it.

In this case they're clearly obstructing their own function and causing devastating damage to the country they purport to serve all in the name of getting their way despite having failed to come up with legal means to do so properly. They've literally devolved to "if i can't have it my way no one can have anything" and if that doesn't deserve an immediate removal I don't know what does.

If they were actually standing for an injustice or resisting because they had majority but were being filibustered and/or vetoed repeatedly they'd have a point, but they're doing more or less the exact opposite. They're rightly being denied their way and extorting to try to force capitulation. It's just sick. At least when Wendy Davis fillibustered Texas semi-successfully (and had it go through the second time anyway) she was doing it to keep rights not to try to force the government to take them like these idiots are.

[Chilly]

I think the problem lies in and surrounding the House of Representatives. This isn't just because they appear or "appear" to be the blockade in this most current process, depending on your viewpoints. That house of Congress just doesn't seem to work very well in general regardless of the controlling party. The ideas behind its creation were decent but even then (3/5 Compromise) there were problems.

Today, the problems are much different and at the top of my list is the ability for gerrymandering to create districts where incumbents or political parties can feel completely safe regardless of what national impact their decisions make. To compound this problem, if there is any unlikely competition in these relatively small races, they can be heavily influenced by billionaires and other high-dollar groups who feel their opinion somehow matters more. Adding more dung to the heap, moderates have to watch their backs on both sides which leads them closer to one extreme or another leading to less compromise, less actual governing.

I admit, swathes of blue or red really exist where 9 out of 10 people for several hundred miles may lean in one direction but the "balance" to which it is currently now constituted is an embarrassment of policy and maybe even corruption-lite. This would usually segue in my eternal hatred for the Electoral College system, but I'm getting tired and have another target to fire at first.

The problem also lies in the American people, which one can base the House of Representatives on, as much as gerrymandering allows, anyways. I'd like a recall feature to be possible so politicians feels compelled to do the best for the nation but so many people are under- or uneducated about policies that I cannot trust them to vote and/or too lazy and fat to educate themselves to vote.

Today's voters and targeted voters are people who react to buzzwords, slogans and fear. If you try to infringe upon their suffrage, they will defend their rights to the death, because they feel entitled to it, but left alone, many people won't vote or are competent to vote. As a result, not everyone deserves a vote, these aren't the voters the great heroes of history wanted voting. As much as I would like to blame politicians and the broken system that exists the people shoulder a lot of the blame too.

[ChaoticCJ]

In this case they're clearly obstructing their own function and causing devastating damage to the country they purport to serve all in the name of getting their way despite having failed to come up with legal means to do so properly. They've literally devolved to "if i can't have it my way no one can have anything" and if that doesn't deserve an immediate removal I don't know what does.

If they were actually standing for an injustice or resisting because they had majority but were being filibustered and/or vetoed repeatedly they'd have a point, but they're doing more or less the exact opposite. They're rightly being denied their way and extorting to try to force capitulation. It's just sick. At least when Wendy Davis fillibustered Texas semi-successfully (and had it go through the second time anyway) she was doing it to keep rights not to try to force the government to take them like these idiots are.

Both Wendy Davis and Ted Cruz only did the fillibustered for political purposes, they both knew they would lose and did it to get recognition. Simple as that.

As for the CR, it goes both ways, it is also sick the democrats refuse to pass the small funding measures. You forget to take into account that Republicans BELIEVE they are standing for an injustice, which even now a little less than half the county agrees with them. Right now (SOME) republicans have the mindset that congress shouldn't get those special benefits of a 72% subsidy, don't like the medical taxes, etc. Others really don't know what to do and are stuck in between a rock and a hard place.

Believe it or not Republicans believe they are winning this argument. In some case they are right, the numbers are actually really in their favor consider all the factors.

[Sardines]

Right now (SOME) republicans have the mindset that congress shouldn't get those special benefits of a 72% subsidy, don't like the medical taxes, etc.

Those congressmen must have a really good private health care insurance plan.

[Yabloki]

Law or not, Obamacare has some serious flaws, or Obama wouldn't be handing out as many exceptions and exemptions and so on as he had. I don't think Boehner should be expelled because you could make the same argument back at the Democrats that they're not handling their own very well by not repealing that themselves. But I don't really think that's the bigger issue.

Personally, I'd like nothing better than to just continue with the shutdown. It's total BS that this is the end of the world and "millions of Americans are suffering". No. A couple hundred thousand employees are out of work (temporarily) (and that's a shockingly large number of "non-essential employees" for any entity to have; I wonder if any private company could boast the same). I can't visit Yosemite this weekend. I can't renew my passport. Boohoo.

I want to see this continue on because when it actually does start to get bad (I'd love to see this stalemate continue through the debt ceiling debate), then people on BOTH sides of the isle can start owning their pomegranate.

[Eos]

No. A couple hundred thousand employees are out of work (temporarily) (and that's a shockingly large number of "non-essential employees" for any entity to have; I wonder if any private company could boast the same). I can't visit Yosemite this weekend. I can't renew my passport. Boohoo.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/...utdown-impact/

[Encyclopedic]

@Yabloki; @Eos;
There are two definitions of non-essential in this case. The shutdown uses the strictest definition, which sends EVERYONE except the most vital people home (A normal shutdown sends the whole pineappleing military home, aren't you Americans always so busy saying that you've got the biggest military and stuff) while the Republicans use the lighter definition (in normal times, anyway) when talking about downsizing the government.

In my opinion both sides are at fault here, although I don't see why the Republicans had to make such a big fuss about the Affordable Care Act.