The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central GOP internal civil war

Majority like power? I think you are calculating wrong.

It gives leadership less power, and minority party more power but not FC majority power.

Have to remember that more than half the GOP caucus is relatively new. I think they just want to be able to do what they were elected to do, not be silent pawns in the hands of K-street

Which was to obstruct government and make governing impossible. With only "check" is being labeled RINO and primaried.

In principle, I am sympathetic to congressional reforms, such as giving more power to private member bills and changing committee process to be more open. In practice I am unsympathetic to the ultimate goal to strengthen hostage-taking ability so there are fewer workaround when the minority threatens important government function, like US full faith and credit.

Plus, most of the majority can translate to representing on minority of electorate.

For example, "Pass with support of democrats" is a valid congressional function that ought not to be undermined. Doing so is arguably undemocratic.

I posted this a while ago in the cartoon thread, but this really explains this issue well:

Unless I have read something wrong, passing with support of Dems and minority party getting more say on bringing legislation and amendments to the floor is part of proposed reforms, not something eliminated by them. As it stands, Dems only count if GOP core leadership wants them to count.

Plus I dont think you are being very objective in general, you seem to have taken a view that if the Dems do not get exactly what they want its GOP fault if things come to a standstill. You like the cartoon, but Dems could just as easily give up Obamacare - they just dont want to and are willing to shut the govt down to keep it. But the fact is the Dems are currently the minority party.

Dont confuse process with issues. Issues are subjective, process less so.

I understand you are feeling optimistic about Freedom caucus, but I do not. Based on their past behavior, I am not willing to take their present actions at a face value. I expect ulterior motive.

NYT explained Freedom Caucus demands .

I am surprised not to see any comments on Boehner-Ryan sausage-making.

Such a fundamental violation of GOP's God-given right to default the US gov't over Planned Parenthood and Obamacare.

Too busy, and actually a lot of other items lately have been more interesting anyhow.

I think you get too distracted though over the Dem angle. All that happens in any case is the elites of both parties put together a completely corrupt budget and both scream and moan that anyone who dare protest cares more about PP than anything.

In the end, we all get screwed anyhow.

The govt never really "shuts down" even when it "shuts down", politicians just make a deal of closed parks and such.

If someone tries to throw a wrench in the shady ass way things get done and open up process to rank and file of both parties, people who nominally care about corruption and decay get distracted by attacks against the other positions they are claimed to hold and join hands with the oligarchy.

I mean, someone on these very forums openly worried that proposed changes would lead to things like walls and wars even though the core people behind the protest were the only reason we didnt get involved even more in Syria and kept vigil on the floor to prevent Patriot Act from getting rammed through again.

But hey, looking down on people based on specious media reporting and subjective wedge issues is terribly gratifying.